I have read a lot of criticism towards GP2 for creating sub standard drivers. On this site its mainly been Silver Arrow who's been the most outspoken but I've seen criticism towards GP2 on other forums from a variety of members and also the F1 pundits (who are secondary to Silver Arrow of course). Exaggerated this year by: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18860987 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/19509199 So first of all 1)what makes GP2 a bad series for producing quality drivers? 2)what makes for a good series for producing quality drivers? 3)If you had a young driver of say 16/17 fresh out of karting and (money no object) you had 5/6 years during which you could enter him into whichever series you liked and you had to turn him into the best possible driver for F1. Which combination of racing series would you enter him?
Am i right in saying that once you win the GP2 title, you can't enter it ever again? Thats a really bad idea, some people aren't ready for the step up to F1.
1)what makes GP2 a bad series for producing quality drivers? Money rules over talent. It's just a ****ing shopping window for capable drivers that have a ton of money in their pockets, oh look Maldonado, Perez, Chilton, Grosjean etc... 2)what makes for a good series for producing quality drivers? Non really as these junior catagories are full of maldonado's and grosjeans in short, only the guys who have the most money, the best team and talent stay away from that **** so it's not equal what so ever. 3)If you had a young driver of say 16/17 fresh out of karting and (money no object) you had 5/6 years during which you could enter him into whichever series you liked and you had to turn him into the best possible driver for F1. Which combination of racing series would you enter him? F3 Euroseries for 2 years, then Formula Renault 3.5 for 1 year. That's why RBR stick there youth drivers in there and I haven't seen Ricciardo or Vergne crash into people at every race like the GP2 champions/drivers have you? Formula Renault 3.5 is regarded where the (true talent gets tested out), not Bernie and Flabio's GP3, GP2 series where you are paying something like 2 million a year just for one of the weaker teams...money rules over talent in that series so they're pretty much pay drivers more so than the Formula Renault champions/drivers. And the scary thing is these GP2/3 drivers already race on these F1 tracks and they are still a ****ing hazard when they enter F1 when compared against drivers like Ricciardo and Vergne. It's simple, GP2 isn't a good enough series to prepare a young driver for F1, he must become a test driver as well for 1 season at least, having at least practiced half of the actual GP's in a F1 car. And then I would stick them in a test car just like Bottas at Williams for a season to get him settled with the car and team. This is why they pulled him out instead of going into GP2, talent! (and I must say Williams must feel confident with this kid if they think he can jump from GP3 straight into a test driver role to enter F1 in 2013.) He/she should be ready at aged 20-21 for F1 if I was their manager etc... These guys are getting too dangerous now and not in the controlled way either! Lewis is the exception though, he had McLaren backing him and directing how he should drive and he was BY FAR!!!! the most prepared rookie I'll ever see enter F1, very prepared unlike the idiots that followed him a few years later.
Without wishing to boil down a diatribe which I agree with mostly (especially about money talking in GP2) to a single statement, what you propose here is not a "quick fix" and I don't think that mandating additional experience for drivers will help weed out poorer drivers. If anything, the need for younger drivers to test if they want to get into F1 would increase costs - and hence reliance on external finance - even more! Sakon Yamamoto's driven in F1 for about two to three seasons, but in that time he's caused his fair share of accidents. Karthikeyan at Malaysia drove very poorly even for someone in a car as poor as the HRT, he's had two full seasons now, but then you've got some youngsters that have come in and not caused any trouble at all. Experience of an F1 car =/= talent, and won't stop accidents. A more stringent superlicence procedure centering around reactions, racing guidelines and - lest we forget - pace (!)... that I could get behind. Reactions and racing guidelines tests are fairly straightforward; pace isn't. Perhaps the FIA could run a young drivers' test, in identical cars, at which youngsters seeking to apply for a superlicence would have to get within say 103% of a chosen benchmark (I'm thinking Kovalainen here rather than Webber, mind), with plenty of time to set the car up to their liking beforehand... no use giving a superlicence to someone because they can get out of a car quickly and have driven an F1 car in a straight line. I've also mentioned before the idea of a young drivers' race for them to gain racing experience. I suspect that that is one of the key areas it is difficult to prepare for - not so much the G-forces but the reactions and the racecraft. Well, anyway. As I say, I agree with you mostly but I don't think forcing young drivers to undergo lots of testing in an F1 car will necessarily improve matters, because it will simply force people to jump through more hoops and restrict access to the genuinely talented IMO.
I agree pretty much with what Silver's saying. GP2 is where you looks if you want a pay driver, the costs are extortionate meaning only the richest drivers can compete. This doesn't mean they aren't talented, but you're limiting the talent pool if you're excluding the less well backed drivers. I think in GP2 you get a lot of rich kids who think they own the circuit driving round like maniacs. The ties between it and F1 is often touted as a positive, but I think many of the drivers end up with over inflated egos being on the undercard of an F1 grand prix and drive with arrogance as a result. In F3 and WSR you have a wider talent pool due to reduced entry costs. I think the teams tend to be run on tighter budgets as well, and the drivers are mindful of this knowing if they smash the car up it's going to be put the team under enormous strain. WSR is the best series in my opinion. Antonio Felix da Costa was easily the best driver in either GP3 or GP2 from what I saw this season, and I believe he's entering that for next season instead of GP2. He started racing in it midway through this season and looks a class act. He'll probably be in a Toro Rosso in 2014. Edit: Article here on the cost of racing: http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/64894.html Shows just how overpriced GP2 is.
The only bad drivers that come from GP2 are those that have risen up too quickly. They havnt picked up any midfield experiance
Maldonado is 27 in his second season with Williams. Hamilton went straight to McLaren as a 22 year old.
I think Gp2 is at a tipping point. A few years back it had a good pool of drivers, this year seems poor, with Gp3 potentially dangerous. Not sure if its just a phase or if the rules have created a mess of a series.
I think the best feeder series would be something where every team is equal, and properly equal, not like it is now. Give every team access to the exact same parts, a cap on staff numbers and salary (so whilst engineers can move, they can't be tempted with better pay), and make all data collected open for everyone down the pitlane to view, with the aim of sending out 20,24 drivers on a saturday morning in Q1 in identical machinery, with set-ups they're happy with, and an equal chance at pole. Remove the issue of the teams, make the racing purely about separating the best driver. In terms of funding it, get a title sponsor for the series, and rather than have sponsors for an individual team, they sponsor every team, the money split equally. That way sponsors get their branding on every winning car and every winning driver. Make the teams sustained by this sponsors alone, so they can then take on anyone with talent, personal sponsors become irrelevant.
For me, there should be a series of older (detuned) F1 cars (with limited regulation changes to simulate current cars) funded by F1. All cars should be standard and the same, chassis, engine, gearbox and the cars should basically be arrive and drive with only driver set up changes a variable! No financial constraints, no diffenet support network or better technical backing - pure racing!
I think in F1 there must be a points relegation for stupidity. Each driver must not go over a certain amount of points or face punishment of F1 career magnitude. The top two will be investigated at the end of the season or even during the season if they're that ****e, to be again judged that they shouldn't be in F1, or force them back into a test driver role for a few GP's until deemed ready to return to F1 GP's. Crashing into cars, DNF's of driver fault, repeat offences, jumping starts, ****ing up entry to pits, etc... all will add points to each driver. Both Romain and Pastor would be over this years limit and the FIA would be considering banning them both from F1 until they really learnt their lesson. Consistency (driver wise) should be rewarded with a separate tournament that would win those teams with drivers with actual control (insert a few million here). If you forced each team to put in £500,000 (HRT, Caterham, Marussia)//£750,000 (Toro Rosso, Force India, Williams)//£1,000,000 (Lotus, Sauber) £2,000,000 (Red Bull, Mercedes, Ferrari, McLaren) TOTAL: £13,750,000 Winners: 1st: £5 million 2nd: £3.5 million 3rd: £2 million 4th: £1 million 5th: £500,000 6th: Dinner at Burger King for free The rest can **** off because the money will go to improving safety around tracks!
I fail to see why Silver thinks GP2 is worse then 3.5. The quality of each series is determined by the quality of the drivers. I have seen some idiots in 3.5, just as you get in GP2. To lambast just GP2, which it seems is purely on the basis that Red Bull have no presence, is just a knee-jerk reaction to some of the incidents we have seen this year. Both Grosjean and Maldonado have shown they are quick enough to be in F1. They lack experience only. Sometimes good judgement takes time, some have it naturally. To say its all down to GP2 is bollocks. If they had been in 3.5 I imagine they would still be driving the same way they do now.
Which drivers do you think had more crashes? FR 3.5: (Seb, Alonso, Kubica, Heikki) Or GP2: (Grosjean, Maldonado, Lewis, Perez)
Maldonado, from Suzuka looked very mature and a bit subdued. I hope he stays like that, the difference between him and Grosjean is that he (Pastor) has an anger issue, but other than that he is class. Grosjean is very good when the race is well under way (midpoint), but has no sense of anything that is happening around him at the start.
Changed thanks Which drivers do you think had more crashes? FR 3.5: (Seb, Alonso, Kubica) 4 WDC's Or GP2: (Grosjean, Lewis, Perez) 1 WDC's *Of course the other series has run longer but I have an agenda... So by using Mitt Romney logic FR 3.5 is 4 times better than GP2? And that's why he is so fast because he did FR 3.5 and then spent 4 years becoming a moron in GP2.
