planetf1.com

I find this probably the most irrational statement I've ever read on this boored

Does anyone, anywhere really believe that Red Bull F1 would have one single less point because of Helmut Marko's contribution?

Red Bull's success is down to Newey and his design team, Horner and his race team and Renault and their engine team. IMO anyone of a number of other top drivers would have similar or better results to Vettel, Marko's 'contribution', over the past four years

As for Danica, the lack of respect for her racing ability is risible, especially from people who would literally make a mess in their pants if they sat in a car travelling at 200mph on a 30 degree banking, 10cm from a concrete wall! The 'real men' she races against respect her, I have no idea why keyboard warriors do not! Just ask Raikonnen if NASCAR is so easy!

_________________
Sebastien Vettel, the youngest driver ever to have the fastest car in F1 for four consecutive years

quite possibly they would not have Vettel so yes, for that reason alone it is very possible that without Marko Red Bull could have scored a lot less points.

RBR do. If not, he would not be there.
Or do you believe the only thing he ever does is making crude statements and bullying other drivers? That would be naive.



It would be pretty hard to better 3 WDC's in 4 years. I believe a few drivers would achieve the same, but it would, again, be very naive to think RBR's success isn't down to Vettel for a big chunk. They way his form keeps up under immense title pressure is nothing short of impressive.



Funny thing about this is I could replace "Danica" in this paragraph with "Vettel" and mirror the same remark to several keyboard warriors on this very forum.
But that aside, I don't think Danica is disrespected. I do think, however, she wouldn't do well in F1, as do a lot of other people. Don't see anything wrong with that, people who actually race in F1 and have had lots of success in feeder series (actual wins and titles) get scrutinized to the extreme, so why would anyone be upset if people want to discuss Danica's abilities?

Sounds a lot like positive discrimination, if you ask me.

But the question is not is Danica a competent race driver but is she good enough for F1?

Her resumee in Indycars would suggest she isn't, all of her outstanding performances have come on ovals which bear no resemblance to F1 whatsoever. In respect to road courses and street courses she has been very poor, this is what F1 teams would be looking at, if she was as dominant in this respect like Will Power she would have a contract signed, sealed and delivered.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 14th Position

There have been countless "competent" drivers in F1 and most never won. Why is it fair that they got a chance and she shouldn't?

As for road courses, the IRL cars being crappy to begin with (no to mention hideous to look at - New cars not as bad I think) and designed specifically for left turn type racing, the cars have to be adapted for course tracks and with so few races of that genre, the knowledge for setups is simply very minimal and the racing flat out SUCKS… FOR EVERYONE!!!

There are a handful of drivers in the IRL that show signs of being good enough for F1 but with so few seats and so many "feeder" series out there that are better, it's highly unlikely anyone from the IRL will get the call. Not for some time at least. I just wish they had gone back to multiple engine and chassis manufacturers to restore American Open Wheel racing to what it once was. Instead we have this crap league with a talent pool that is put to shame if comparing it to past eras.

These guys are content to run in the crap series and as far as I know, very few aspire to bigger and better things the likes of GP2 or F1 and that's not good. It was one thing in the 80's and 90's when the cars and the series was among the elite, but since the tail end of the ChamCar days, it has been a poor shell of what it once was.

As for Danika, BRAVO!!!

She was in 3rd place on the last lap and driving spectacularly and were it not for her inexperience she'd have made sure to not get caught up on the outside like that and lose those 5 places coming around the last turns. Either way I think she proved she belongs.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!

No, she didnt prove she belongs just that she can hang near the front at a restrictor plate race. Now, if she does decent at Phoenix where its fast, flat and a funky layout then maybe she can start to prove she belongs. Plenty of people have won on restrictor plate tracks only to not even finish in the top 20 of points. Its only 4 races of the very long year.

As for IRL mainly racing on ovals, yes they DID and it was due to the CART and IRL breaking apart. This year only 6 of the 19 races are on ovals.

Why would Indy drivers want to run in GP2? That's not aspiring to do better. Most of the kids in GP2 would die for an Indy seat.

_________________

Well i used competent as a generalisation, she's good on ovals, i would be stretching the term in relation to driving a F1 car fast.

Are not most of the races in the Indycar series now not road/street courses, i'm sure the cars are up for the job in hand

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 14th Position

Because most of them have proven in feeder series that they can perform in single-seaters, as opposed to Danica who was bested by a great number of fellow racing drivers, most of whom also didn't get a chance to move into F1?

Isn't this a no-brainer?

And for those that didn't perform in feeder series and bought their way into F1: well, they simply didn't belong in F1 either.

No you would look for a top Indycar driver like Will Power to go into a F1 car thats always been the case in the past, clearly Indycar is a step up from GP2 in terms of career because its a paid drive.

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 14th Position

For some, not most.

_________________

Yes she did.

Restrictor plate or not the cars are identical in either configuration and are just as much of a handful. Faster makes them a bit more unpredictable at higher speed but not much more so. Time will tell but Daytona is a legendary track that is proven to be quite difficult to do well at and even more difficult win.




And the cars are still not as good as the could or should be for course racing and are better suited for Oval racing and most teams simply lack the experience for course track racing and are better prepared for oval racing because that's where their experience and expertise lies. In time that may change but right now IRL races lack some excitement. (for me)

_________________
Second place is the first loser!

Speedway cars are not identical to the non-plate cars, and the physical racing is completely different.



Indy cars are similar in that they run completely different body work for ovals vs. road courses and street circuits. The teams are more than competent at running and setting up both. It is absolutely not a case of engineers and mechanics standing around going "derr we only know ovals so what do we do here? derp derp derpl." The cars may be ugly, but they aren't any more dumbed down than current F1 cars. F1 cars are not as fast or advanced as they COULD be either. So what?

_________________

Well i would tip moreso than GP2?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 14th Position

The racing seems quite good to me, i've started watching again now the races have gone back to more traditonal tracks and away from the ovals

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 14th Position

Maybe, but even some of the "top" guys are just living off their sponsor dollars the same as GP2 kids. Most of the grid has to bring money to the team. Read the recent Katherine Legge drama to see exactly how that works, or doesn't.

_________________

A casing point: EJ Viso. He came from GP2.

F1 Teams are not made only of those that are directly providing points. Perhaps the RBR cleaning lady, apparently, also didn't contributed to a single point, yet she is a part of the success for providing the good sanitary environment. Helmut Marko has it's work behind the curtains. He is adviser. He is a part of success, just like every other RBR employee, each on a different level, and Marko is a top RBR official, so his contribution is higher than most other RBR employee. Just accept that big systems work like that.

_________________
The end is near

Perhaps just a handful get paid by the teams then?

_________________
PFI Pick 10 Competition

Current Standing: 14th Position

Yes, Daytona is a legendary track but the race is a crap shot of who will win. Its the nature of the beast within restrictor plate racing and why its so difficult to win there. The best teams generally win because they can devote the resources to build a specific plate race chassis. Its why Hendrix, Richard Childress and Roush do so well.

Simply put, the cars might be identical but there are slight differences in power that show but it allows for teams that dont have the budget to be on the same level field. Like I said, she has had 11 races in the Cup series of which she has one top ten finish. That does NOT show you belong at all. If she can manage top 20 finishes for the next 5-6 races/tracks then she will truly start to turn some heads but I doubt she will.

IRL is totally different now. They have different engines with different chassis. They are NOT the same as back to when they ran on ovals for 90% of the races.

Even the teams further back have speedway specific chassis. Scott Speed (the best driver ever), for example, mentioned yesterday that he played it super safe in the end because he was in their only speedway car.

_________________

Well, I truly meant multiple cars. Hendrix for example has cars for just Daytona and Talledega (2 for each track) and then multiple for the intermediate tracks like Charlotte and Texas. Then, short track cars that are for flat tracks and some for the higher banked short tracks. I think last year Jeff Gordon said they had 38 chassis for the season to start off with.

And I meant other teams at the back build plate race chassis too.

Also, it's Hendrick.

_________________

I don't know why spell check was changing it. Sad I didn't catch it as I've been a Hendrick fan for years. Started watching when Gordon was a rookie with the rainbow warriors.

I'm calling him Wonderoldman now.

_________________

Thread will be locked if this doesn't get back on topic - Marko's comments about Danica and F1.

How can you discuss Danica and a potential role (or not) in F1 without understanding the context in which she is competing now? That's all we're talking about.

_________________

You were veering off topic talking about Jeff Gordon, Scott Speed and how a NASCAR car works. That has nothing to do with Danica, Marko and his comments about her not being good enough for F1. You also seem keen on dragging it out into the field of GP2 drivers and IndyCar drives, again which has nothing to do with Danica and Marko's comments. Danica hasn't been mentioned in this thread for 13 posts and even then it was a brief mention.

Get back to Danica and Marko's comments about her regarding F1 or the topic will be locked. Final warning.

Mod Blue, Please help us bring danica and other hot chicks in F1.

_________________
KIMI: Yeah,Winning feels good.But I am not the type of guy to jump up and down and rub it in everyone's face.

I guess Danica has put the issue to rest.

http://www.flagworld.com/news/2013/02/2 ... f1-switch/

Another driver who fit the category was infact AJ Allmendinger. Apparently just like Danica, Only 2 words - "No interest". But IMHO, he would have been the next US-best thing to get into F1. Bourdais dominated the CCWS from 2004 throught 2007 before they folded. But in 2006, RuSport dropped AJ before he got picked-up by Forsythe and he won 5 races. During that time, AJ had RB backing. I wished RB would have persuaded AJ to make the jump.

I believe if you are in America and want to run into F1 via GP2, it may require to run the Indy Lights series. JR Hildebrand won his 2009 Indy Lights title and was given a chance to test an F1 car. JR tested a Force India car compliments from some of VJ Mallya's contacts where he got introduced. I could not understand why GP2 paddock passed up on him.

I mean - a GP2 car is a bit faster that an Indy Lights car.

And also coming soon - Possibly some of Canada's best such as Giancarlo Raimundo and Nelson Mason.

Im not trying to be argumentative, but we were discussing the difference between speedway and short/intermediate track cars because it makes a difference in gauging her performance. Performance in a plate race vs performance in non-plate races, which are the overwhelming majority of the season, and how that reflects on Formula 1 potential. Scott Speed's quote was evidence for the explanation that different chassis are used for different types of tracks (ie plate races vs not), same with Jeff Gordon/38 chassis info. How can Indy Car (her last job) and GP2 as part of the ladder to F1 be off topic in a thread about why Danica should or shouldn't aim for F1?

_________________

Keep it to Danica and her F1 chances. Not how GP2 and IndyCar relate to each other. How the car performs has nothing to do with Danica's F1 chances, how she performs does.

You have a talent for bringing threads off topic Ashley, we suggest you stop before we are forced into heavier sanctions.

Final warning. Any more deviation the thread will be locked.

Mod Blue.

How can you measure her performance without understanding what she is performing in? Its like Dr Marko pointing out that her road course results in IndyCar were not so good. Some of us were pointing out that her speedway/plate results tend to be better than her short track results, so making any conclusions about her talent or capacity for competing at the top of Nascar based on her Daytona result is naive. Its like saying any thread comparing F1 drivers - or for that matter, potential F1 drivers currently in GP2/3/WSR/F3, must not contain any discussion of the cars they drive or the difference in types of circuits they excel on.

Further, the original link in the first post contains more than Dr. Marko's thoughts. Lauda talks about why it would be good to have a woman in Formula 1, and because Danica is the woman we are talking about, it also begs the question, is an American woman good for F1? Why can't we discuss the path to Indy (which Danica took) vs the path to Formula 1, in that context? Its relevant to how Americans get where they get.

What should we discuss here? I'm genuinely asking.

_________________

Danica and her F1 chances. Will she get there or won't she? Is she a good enough driver or isn't she? It doesn't need to go down the route where you end up taking about the difference between restrictor plate cars or not. It doesn't need to involve other drivers like Scott Speed. Yes it can involve Danica's results but not the inner workings of a NASCAR car. GP2 has nothing to do with Danica. If you want to talk about the difference between IndyCar and GP2 for driver futures then open up a new and separate thread, don't bring it into here.

Now please stop arguing with me in this thread, you are taking if off topic once again. If you need to ask us anything there is a feedback thread for a reason, we are fed up reminding people to use it.

Now, either keep it to Danica and her F1 chances and Marko's comments about her future or we WILL lock the thread.

Mod Blue.

I don't think she's a good enough driver for F1 because her best results in IndyCar were on ovals, and her best results in Nascar sanctioned series are in restrictor plate races. There are few plate races across a Sprint Cup season, so she will need to improve her performance on short and intermediate tracks if she is to prove that she can be a real contender in a top category. Those tracks are more relevant to F1 because the cars raced at them are very different from speedway cars in that they run a lot more downforce (as Scott Speed pointed out over the weekend, the teams use entirely different chassis for the speedway races), and you have to drive really well for the whole race because it doesn't come down to who survives the last lap crash in the pack. Both driving higher downforce cars, and being able to achieve consistent results in different set ups is key in F1, because the cars change week to week and vary significantly depending on the type of track. There's also more room for error in Nascar than F1 because there are so many more point scoring opportunities and the machinery is less expensive. Jeff Gordon uses 38 different cars in a season - you'd be in big trouble in F1 today if you wrote off a couple of chassis, and with less points available, mistakes cost you more.

I also think she'd need a season back in a single seater as a refresh, and definitely a season on as many F1 circuits as possible, since she's been driving over here for so long. To do that, she'd have to step down to something like GP2, which would be kind of crazy given that most GP2 kids would kill for an IndyCar drive.

_________________

If you'd done that in the first place we wouldn't have had a problem. We aren't keen on the attitude displayed above though, kind of makes it look like you are doing your best to wind the Mod team up. We won't tolerate that.

Mod Blue.

I did do that, over several days and many posts. Its an evolving opinion, and the latest one included input from other posters. Can't do all that in one go from the beginning. Its a conversation, it goes back and forth.

I'm not attempting to "wind up" anyone, I'm attempting to explain the context in which I posted information and opinions, because you seemed not to understand the relevance. The only difference between my last post and the previous ones is that I added the phrase "I don't think she's good enough", which I thought was inherent conclusion in the others, because that is the subject of the discussion.

_________________