January’s audio podcast (2010)
January 20th, 2010 |
Ed Foster |
154 Comments
Welcome to the first Motor Sport audio podcast of 2010. What does Nigel Roebuck really think about the return of Michael Schumacher and all the other news from the F1 paddock?
Next month we’re joined by 1978 Formula 1 World Champion Mario Andretti so make sure you ask him a question here!
Also make sure you give us your feedback below as it’s all very well us enjoying recording these, but if you don’t enjoy listening to them, then we aren’t doing a very good job…
If you don’t use iTunes then do use the following link: http://podcast.motorsportmagazine.co.uk/2010/01/January2010podcast.mp3
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Ed returned from a stint in Milan, working on the Italian version of Autocar, and joined the team in August 2007. After two years of countless scooter accidents and a constant battle against coffee addiction it was a relief for him to start writing in his mother tongue. As well as managing the website, Ed writes various features and is a regular contributor to CNN, Channel 4, Sky News, the BBC and a number of radio stations. He was also awarded the MSA/Renault Young Motoring Journalist of the Year in January 2009. 
Garry:
January 20th, 2010 2:49pm
Hi All,
Great podcast.
One of the best memories i have involves attending the South African GP in 1992.
We arrived as morning warm up had started and while walking around the old part of the circuit the silence was broken as M Brundle came screaming past in his benetton.
The sight of that yellow missle shooting past behind the scaffolding beneath the grandstands, accompanied but this ungodly noise will never leave me.
Lose the noise, lose the fans (Mr Hughes!)
Thanks once again for a great mag and podcast.
Garry Honiball
Johannesburg, South Africa
Jim:
January 20th, 2010 3:43pm
I loved the comment about the motor noise taking away from the commentary. Good stuff as always Gents!
Jon Pollak:
January 20th, 2010 5:48pm
I cannot believe Max actually asked if the “noise” was important to us.
Wait a minute…Yes I can.
Jp
Gary Dunn:
January 20th, 2010 5:52pm
Enjoyable listen chaps, thanks for another one.
Max Mosely & the distracting noise… If he doesn’t like engine noise what on earth made him want to race himself & then be a Team Owner? The last time I visited a GP was a Saturday, at the start of a session, standing at the exit of Copse & the cars came out the pitlane exit line astern;- the cumulative noise was unexpected, but fantastic.
The effect of all the engines all sounding the same nowadays is a great, great shame. There is however one engine in F1 that does sound ‘miles’ better than all the others though. The Merc Safety Car.
Tell me I’m not alone in thinking that.
Santiago Fernández:
January 20th, 2010 6:11pm
I also found Mr. Mosley’s comment very surprising (nice of you to have a “sound clip” of that interview ;)). It’s surprising and worrying considering he started out in the pitlane, close to the public; what the hell happened in between? What ever the causes, it’s a good lesson to anyone in management so they can see how disconnected management can get to be from reality.
I’d like to think we eventually will have different engine noises from the cars with the push for new eco-friendly techs, but do take into account a great deal of variety in the past came from the fact that the only way of knowing if something was going to work was making it and bolting it onto the car and go racing. Nowadays a great many deal of designs and configurations are tested and destroyed in a virtual world without ever being physically built and only the most promising ones will ever be physically made, so that takes out some variety, the rest coming up from how big a budget you have, and how much freedom is in the regulations.
I’m exited Mr. Andretti will be in the next podcast! Can’t wait for it! And good job with the audio, on previous occasions I was constantly fiddling with the volume on my computer because not all voices came trough clear enough, now I only touched it a couple of times.
James Robson:
January 20th, 2010 7:15pm
When I think of F1 and distracting noises it isn’t the engines that come immediately to mind….
Thank you for your insights and an interesting listen again.
I’m very much looking forward to hearing Mario’s views.
peter walker:
January 20th, 2010 7:19pm
Hi guys,
As usual a great podcast.
Maxs remarks about engine sounds and Bernies idear about overtaking just goes to show they have no idear what F1 is all about.
Love the magazine just wish it would get here a little quicker here in the USA.
Michael Spitale:
January 20th, 2010 8:20pm
HA…. something about Kimi does not work for Nigel…. Last month Rob had to prod him a bit on Kimi and this month Nigel said Kimi was “anialated” by Massa for 3 years…. History will show one guy won a title and will forget the other guy(Massa) who will never win a title. Yes, Ferrari was not a good fit for Kimi in the end,the team never got behind him and he never got behind them… McLaren was a natural fit for a Finn. However, to act like he is some also ran, is crazy….
Bec:
January 20th, 2010 8:53pm
Max asked the question about noise because F1 is under siege by the environmental lobby, maybe instead of Motorsport magazine burying it’s rose tinted bespectacled heads in the sand and attacking F1, it should find counter arguments to the green fanatics.
Tony Geran:
January 20th, 2010 10:12pm
Nice to see you chaps in homogeneous blue shirts. Great podcast as usual and not really surprised by Mosley’s remarks – Nigel, have you briefed your lawyer yet? – Mosley deserves a damn good spanking, oops. I can remember being in the middle of Albert Park crossing to the St Kilda Rd side of the track during morning warm up (remember them?)in 1997 and being bombarded by the noise. The V8’s by comparison sound awful not a patch on the Matra V12’s, Ferrari and Alfa Flat 12’s and the Cossies of the ’70’s and early ’80’s that I was priveleged to see on a few occasions. On the matter of Raikkonen I recently watched his qualifying lap at Suzuka on the F1 DVD recently very impressive fast and smooth, pity he couldn’t get his head together for the whole season, a real enigma.
Andrew:
January 20th, 2010 10:23pm
Great podcast guys, kept me well entertained tonight whilst putting up a bookcase…….
Re the comments on GP supports – whilst the number of support races at the British GP has reduced significantly since I first attended the race (mid 1980’s), the recent introduction of 2 Formula BMW races to the established package of 2 x GP 2 races, Porsche Supercup and a Historic Sportscar race has provided more on – track racing (and greater quality) than say 3/4 years ago (anyone remember the Maserati race with the driver changes ?).
Really enjoyed the comments from Mr Mosley – does Mr Roebuck have a Nigel Mansell impression within his repertoire ?
Tony Geran:
January 20th, 2010 10:50pm
Just another thought on the engine noise perhaps Max was worried about Occupation Health and Safety concerns. Regarding access I was lucky enough to be in Austria in 1976 and was able to walk into the paddock free (or a modest fee I can’t quite recall given the passage of time) on the Thursday before the race and you were able to stand above the pits and look down on the paddock and the pitlane for nothing. Granted it was a long time ago.
Grant Levis:
January 20th, 2010 11:07pm
Hi team, great podcast as always.
Comment about Schumacher and “God” being on the grid together is interesting as I thought he had raced against Senna already!!
I feel the new season will be history repeating with the team that gets a car to work on the varying fuel load best will cream the rest, and that will most likely be either Mercedes or Red Bull as both have brilliant Technical Managers with the right budget.
Interestiing comment about a drivers attitude/ pschology or their job now more than ever requires them to be media & PR savvy, much more than in Jimy Clarks day, so is that why some F3 stars don’t handle F1 as well as their talent suggests. Maybe a list of a few notable drivers that fits that criteria may come from Nigel. I can think of 2 colonials, Brett Riley (Mansells quicker team mate in F3), and Dave Walker from Aussie ( did he not get a top car from Chunky?)
Engine noise, definitely the V12 Matra, it could make ones blood curdle.
Grant Levis NZ
Michael Spitale:
January 20th, 2010 11:29pm
Once they get this mag sorted out for us in the States it will be great. I got my January issue today and they are about to come out with the March issue…. AMAZING!
Mario Carneiro Neto:
January 20th, 2010 11:42pm
Great podcast!
Surprised the court’s decision on Flav and Symonds’ ban wasn’t discussed.
Very excited to hear from my namesake next month!
Mario
Brian Rigney:
January 21st, 2010 7:15am
Geat podcast as always.On the subject of noise i say the more the merrier. That’s what racing is all about. I was not privileged to hear V12 Matras etc as my only live GP experience has been the turbo era at Adelaide ( a little quiet for my liking) and the 2005 Melbourne GP. i remember catching a tram to Albert park and you could hear the cars in practice from miles away! Absolutely beautiful. I do have a CD of various cars ( Nick Mason’s collection I think that came with Motor Sport years ago) and that BRM V16! Now that is a beautiful noise. If the Merc safety car has the same engine that’s in the gullwing then Gary is right. That is a great sound as well from the videos I have seen.
On the matter of subscriptions, I took the advice of fellow aussie bloggers and signed up. 2 copies now, cheaper than the newstands and arrives a week after UK publication. Definitely the way to go for down under folk. Just have to get our USA cousins sorted out now with the mail
Andy Muggeridge:
January 21st, 2010 1:12pm
Another great podcast. Not surprised at all to hear the story about Max and engine noise – just goes to prove yet again that he really had no clue about what excites F1 fans. Thank God he’s gone. Let’s hope Todt is not Mad Max 2 !
I absolutely love the magazine but what a shame the quality of the paper has gone down in the last couple of issues !
Legend has to be one of the most overused words in sport these days but for sure it’s apt for the great Mario Andretti. Can’t wait to hear his views !
Dave Cubbedge:
January 21st, 2010 1:52pm
do I like engine sound?
all I can say is Matra V12.
rob widdows:
January 21st, 2010 5:07pm
Thank you everybody for your positive comments. Yes, we probably should have tackled the continuing saga of Briatore and Symonds, and we will in the weeks to come. It’s not going to go away……….
Noise? Yes! The Matra V12. Absolutely!
Next time of course we have Andretti with us so we will naturally focus on the great Italian American and his extraordinary career.
I will be back with a fresh ‘blog’ as soon as possible but first I’m away for a week, doing some research and tidying up all the loose ends that are still around after the ‘disruption’ of the Christmas/New Year break.
Glad you enjoyed the casting of the latest pod. We are always looking for ways to improve it as the year progresses.
RW
Luke Ward:
January 21st, 2010 7:41pm
Thoroughly enjoying the podcasts fellas! i really appreciate the insights, and the fact that you’ve chosen this format to let us hear what you have to say.
Question for you: Schumacher is a champion of the refuelling days of F1, no? He was the king of blindingly fast in and out laps, and the short “sprinty” format of races through his career. How do you think he will fare in the new no-refuelling F1? Is he easy on his tires? As soomth as Prost? Or Button? Will his brilliance at new tires/short stints stand him in good stead, or will he struggle with long runs, trying to go whole GPs on one set of tires, or perhaps only 1 stop, or will the team be working to run him light, fast, and stop more, to play to that strength of his?
Surely this is a newish challenge for him…unless they start mandating pitstops or something silly like that…
Thanks,
Luke
joe brown:
January 21st, 2010 11:16pm
Best podcast so far guys,well done,keep it up.
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 2:27pm
N Roebuck:
“Scumacher was definitely not ready to retire…
He had the opportunity to continue driving for Ferrari…
But he only wanted to be Number 1…
And if he’d stayed, he would have annihilated Kimi…”
Ha ha! Sometimes Mr Roebuck’s logic completely baffles me.
So, if Schumacher wasn’t ready to retire then why didn’t he stay and fight Kimi straight up?
Do tell us, Mr Roebuck?
Why not tell us that the gutless German only wanted to have winless Journeymen Number 2s as team mates (and in a horribly weak driver era) instead of speculating on about ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ and ‘may bes’?
The fact is that a very young Raikkonen went toe-to-toe with Schumacher in a 1yr old McLaren only to be scuppered by Ferrari’s special relationship with the FIA as they and Bridgestone destabalized the Michelin title contenders (Kimi/Mclaren, JPM/Williams) as they got too close to comfort to the German/Italian cheats in the championship? That was 2003.
And then Schumacher got completely blown away in 2005 by Raikkonen (the driver of the year by almost every proper publication) and Alonso.
It would be nice to see Nigel sticking to facts instead of speculating about what Schumacher would have done in 2007.
The fact is that Schumacher chickened out.
It’s as simple as that.
Schumacher chickened out for 2007…
…and then Schumacher chickened out for Monza 2009 when he made up some silly story instead of telling the truth about how he didn’t want to get into the KERS Ferrari F60 dog against a very in-form Raikkonen.
Kimi is a different kettle of fish to Nico…and Schumi would know that, especially with Brawn ready to bow down to the German’s every wish.
If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candy and nuts, everyday would be Christmas…
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 2:45pm
Schumi: “Ross, I want Number 3 on my car because I only want Odd Numbers…”
Brawn: “Anything you want, Michael…”
* * *
Brawn: “Nico, we’re taking Number 3 away from you…Shumi is superstitious!”
Nico: “Well…ok…I could care less. He can have it.”
1 Month Later:
Brawn: “Nico, you’re our new Jos…our new Eddie…our new Rubens. End of…”
Nico: “#u@%!!!”
Ha ha!
Ed Foster:
January 22nd, 2010 2:53pm
Hi Raphael,
I agree that Kimi would have certainly given Schumacher something to worry about. However, Nigel does say in the podcast that Ferrari were very much looking to the future and the German may have been pushed out before he wanted to go, hence the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’!
EF
rob widdows:
January 22nd, 2010 3:26pm
We will poner the question of whether or not Schumacher will repond well to the lack of re-fuelling during races in a future podcast. But, for now, let’s say that the man has always been particularly careful to completely understand strategy, and the finer points of the technologies in the cars, and of course he communicates very closely with Ross Brawn. they are a team. So my short answer is that it will pose no probelm to a driver of this calibre.
Nigel will no doubt respond to the various points that have been made as soon as we re-convene for a podcast, although as Andretti (Mario) is a guest next time, we will devote most of the time to him.
We have encouraged some dbate, so that is good.
It would be dull if we all agreed with each other all the time, would it not?
Have a good weekend whereever you are!
RW
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 3:27pm
Mr Foster, Sir:
If Ferrari ‘pushed’ Schumacher ‘out’ it’s because the German wanted only dutiful/contractual Number 2s in the other car.
Schumacher was certainly welcomed to stay under co-equal conditions and partner a driver who was worthy of the top seats Ferrari were proving in those days.
In 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 Ferrari had the very best car/tyre package…but who was in the second seat?
Was Barrichello a top line ‘Ace’?
No!
The podcast team already established that the post Senna/Prost/Mansell era (which began at Imola, 1994) was a horribly weak one…So there was little to chose from…But Barrichello was not in Hakkinen’s league. Even Villeneuve was better than Barrichello…and then Montoya…and then Raikkonen/Alonso…even Button (as proven years later – in 2009).
It was a situation where Schumacher and Brawn ran defacto Number 1 – Number 2 tactics and strategy and the Number 2 was clearly not as good as some other ‘Aces’ on the grid out of an already weak gene pool.
If there was any “pushing out” it was Shumacher deciding to be pushed out.
It was a clear situation of Schumacher being too chicken to drive under co-equal Number 1 conditions against a driver who’d pushed him to the edge in 2003…and then blown him away in 2005.
Mr Roebuck has to understand that it’s one thing to do well against a Journeyman defacto/contractual Number 2…and totally another to do well against a pure out-right Ace under CO-EQUAL conditions.
And for Nigel to muse that Massa “anniliated” Raikkonen is just laughable.
Massa wasn’t good enough to be champion despite Kimi rattling Lewis into penalties/mistakes like he did at Spa and Fuji in 2009…and then moving over for him (Felipe’) in China…and then not interfering with Alonso for 2nd in Brazil (in order to minimize the risk of a tangle between them – Kimi/Fernando – which could reduce the points gap between Felipe and Lewis during the GP at Interlagos.)
Raikkonen did everything he could to help Massa’s championship challenge once he was out of the equation at Spa that year…but Felipe simply wasn’t good enough.
Once Todt left, the Latins were clearly in Massa’s camp at Ferrari. Aiding the Brazilian was his diminutive stature in relation to the much taller Raikkonen which allowed Tombasiz and Costa to play around with the ballast in the front of the car once KERS’s extra weight came on board.
I doubt history will view Massa in the same league as Kimi.
We’ll see.
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 3:35pm
I meant Spa and Fuji 2008…not 2009.
At Spa, Raikkonen’s pace got Lewis penalized which gifted a cheap win to Massa by FIA edict..
At Fuji, Raikkonen put the Ferrari up with the two McLarens on the grid and rattled Lewis into an error at the first corner which cost him (Lewis) points.
At Shanghai, Raikkonen moved over for Massa.
At Brazil, Raikkonen was told by Ferrari not to pressure Alonso for 2nd for fear of contact…Ferrari wanted to maximize the gap between Massa and Hamilton in the race in order to maximize the Brazilian’s championship points haul v Lewis at the meeting.
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 4:23pm
By the way…I LOVE the podcasts.
And even if I don’t agree with all the opinions, I do appreciate the team saying what they feel.
I may not agree with a minority of Mr Roebuck’s opinions…but they are infinitey better to have/hear than the watered-down musings of other ‘pundits’.
It all makes for good debate.
Have a good weekend, gentlemen!
Aaron James:
January 22nd, 2010 4:27pm
Michael was, over the course of 2006, something like half a second quicker than Massa in qualifying – sometimes a lot more, and sometimes a little bit less. Given Massa’s general supremacy over Kimi in qualifying – anywhere between 1-3 tenths – it is hard to fault Nigel saying Kimi would have been annihilated.
Kimi comes alive though at certain types of circuits. It’s undeniable Kimi extracted something magical from the Ferrari at circuits like Hungary, Magny Cours and Spa. But in modern F1 you can’t be a one trick pony (or dolphin). You need to be flexible. And that is what Michael taught Felipe. But Felipe was/is always the student, Michael was/is the master of it.
Indeed there’s a strong argument that 2007 would have been a far more boring affair had Michael still been around. And 2008 could well have been very different also.
rob widdows:
January 22nd, 2010 5:22pm
I have mentioned the request (approved by the FIA) that Michael Schumacher be allowed to race with number 3 on his car this season. This is not unusual but it is suprising to learn that even the 7-times champion cares so much about racing with odd numbers.
In researching seasons past for an article in the magazine it is revealing to discover just how much detail is required to fully understand why a driver was faster, or slower, than another driver over the course of a season. Especially when they are in the same team.
Because 2010 looks, on paper anyway, to be an exciting prospect – 4 champions on the grid, no make-weights, and possibly 6 competitive teams – it is intriguing, to say the least, to look back to other similar seasons.
There aren’t that many. Rarely has a season delivered on its promise, rarely has the grid been so packed with talent and potential winners.
History is fascinating, especially with the advantage of having been there and seen it, or at least some of it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and history is only sometimes a guide to the future.
Comments may sometimes be deemed as “watered down” or “cautious” but this is often because it is all too easy to leap to conclusions based on very little fact.
Have a look at the books!
RW
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 7:07pm
So, are people suggesting that Schumacher was not getting preferential treatment v Massa in 2006, especially during Ferrari’s tight and tense championship battle against Renault/Alonso?
Are people suggesting that Massa was getting all the upgrades and developments at the same time as Schumacher in 2006?
In those days – 2006 – Ferrari had two huge test teams working full time at Fiorano and Mugello which helped them to surpass Renault by mid-to-late season.
Schumacher was contractual Number 1 AND he (not Massa) was fighting Alonso for the title…so for people to think that Massa was getting the full benefit of all those constant upgrades and developments AT THE SAME time as Schumacher is, frankly, foolish.
In 2006 Massa was a clear contractual Number 2…By 2007 Ferrari did not have Massa as a clear contractual Number 2.
Further, the November Podcast already established that Massa improved enormously during his Ferrari years with Mr Roebuck himself saying that (paraphrasing):
“Felipe couldn’t go fast in a straight line when he was at Sauber!”
That Podcast made a point about Massa’s “Steep Learning Curve” during his Ferrari years…so to conveniently forget that aspect of Massa just because one doesn’t like Kimi is a bit naughty.
Massa was a different animal at the beginging of 2006 to the one he became by mid 2008 AND he NO LONGER was a contractual Number 2.
Further, Raikkonen’s style lends itself to over-steering cars with ‘pointy’ front ends and ‘light’ back ends (the type McLaren were producing at Woking between 2002 – 2006)…whereas the Ferrari design team had been used to building cars that tended towards understeer (initiated by Rory Byrne for Schumacher who preferred it) and Nicholas Tombazis and Aldo Costa continued in that vein. Massa’s preferrence, in fact, is towards understeering cars – the exact opposite to Raikkonen preferrence.
To not take any of the above into account is to not tell the whole story.
In addition, For Montezemolo to sign off on $45-$51 Million per annum cheques in Raikkonen’s name while not simultaneously asking the design team to cater to the Finn’s strenghts is to actually not do one’s job. It’s like paying a ton of money to a right-handed batsman and then ask him to go to bat left-handed!
Lastly, if we don’t know the full story of Alonso-Hamilton-Dennis-McLaren for 2007 then it’s ludicrous to think that we know the entire story of what was going on in an increasingly Latin team once Todt (Raikkonen’s primary sponsor into the team) left at the end of 2007.
Kimi was simply not the right ‘fit’ for what Ferrari were becoming.
It’s that simple.
R Tanveer:
January 22nd, 2010 7:54pm
On another note – and further to the Sauber discussion on the podcast – I hear Nick Heidfeld is in line to be extended another German life-line…as test/3rd driver for Mercedes!
Ha ha!
So much for Norbert telling Fairy Tales about Mercedes not being an “All German” team!
So much for Norbert telling the world that “We’re an International team!”
Ha!
You gotta love the BS in F1 sometimes!
He he…
Alastair Warren:
January 22nd, 2010 10:13pm
I thought that Ferrari were in the process of signing Kimi for 2002 when McLaren put their noses out by beating them to it?
How has seven years changed Kimi and his motivation and outlook?
Does Kimi’s departure from F1 in 2009 sit with the James Hunt comparisons?
joe brown:
January 22nd, 2010 11:18pm
Methinks Mr Schumacher vetoed the signing of Kimi
joe brown:
January 22nd, 2010 11:28pm
PS. just a thought like TG,i was lucky enough to get access to the pit lane in 1993
There i saw Max having a conversation with Berni,and yes Max had his finger in his ear.
The only problem was,Max was talking with his finger in his ear WTF
Tania:
January 23rd, 2010 3:04am
Hi guys,
With regard to GP support classes, I beg to differ with the commonality/blandness of GP weekends. I attend the Australian GP in Melbourne each year and the support classes are top class. As well as the local Porsche Supercup type races, there are also the Aussie V8 Supercars (non championship races but no less exciting for it), Formula Ford, Mini Challenge, Aussie GT Championship (Aston Martin DBRS9, Ferrari 430s, Lamborghini Gallardos, Vipers, Lotus Exige, Corvette, Porsche GT3 etc), Aussie Racing Cars (mini-saloon body, 1.2l motorcycle based engines) and the Formula 5000 Tasman Cup Revival. Each series has practice and/or qualifying on the Thursday and Friday, and at least one race on Saturday AND Sunday. With the F1 race starting at 4 or 5pm, a full programme is needed to encourage people to stay at the track all day, and they have been successful. If this is not the fullest F1 event programme in the world, I’d like to know what is!
By the same token, if they can do it in Australia, why not elsewhere?
John Saviano:
January 23rd, 2010 3:26pm
I remember attending races in the late 80s, when you had V8s, V10s, & the V12s from Ferrari & Lamborghini. What sounds! The Lamborghini might have barely worked, but when it did, it sounded great, maybe even better than the Ferrari. Regardless, hearing the differences between engines was fantastic. It’s truly amazing that anybody with even a passing of experience with F1 would not know how important the sounds are. Why even bother to attend – perhaps only TV …?
Steven Roy:
January 23rd, 2010 8:08pm
I don’t think Schumacher was forced out of Ferrari any more than I believe Felipe Massa was his top priority. Schumacher is one of the most single minded people ever to have been in F1 and the idea that he would retire rather than deprive Massa of a drive is laughable.
Ferrari had to have a succession plan in place for his eventual retirement and at that time there were only two top drivers so Ferrari had to have one. They had to sign either Alonso or Raikkonen before they both committed to other teams. Schumacher had the choice of staying at a team that was built round him on equal terms with another driver and didn’t like that option so he chose to retire. Clearly he never lost the desire to race so you have to wonder how much faith he had in his own ability to not take that on. Compare that to Senna going into the lion’s den against Prost.
I know Max has no connection to reality but how is it possible for someone to have spent 40 years in F1 and to have raced himself in F2 and to not know the noise matters? Even for Max this is stunning. It is impossible for me to comprehend that someone at any circuit ever thought the commentator was more important than the cars let alone for that to be someone who has spent his whole life in the sport and has been running it for so long.
A.S.Gilbert:
January 24th, 2010 5:42am
Once again, a very enjoyable session.
Regarding the Massa / Kimi comparative. Bit of a boxing match, Filipe at his best, can win a title based on round points, Kimi’s a stone knockout artist, with a suspect jaw. Annihilated no, usurped, yes.
The numerology issue at Brawn.
Is “it” starting? Yeah, probably, but Nico has little to lose, regarded #8 in the best 8 seats. I think better than that, but both are new to the car. Experience over native speed in the first quarter anyhow.
Max was the M in March, wasn’t he? Built racing cars and populated the globe with them, simply a business exercise, must’ve been.
Missed the (sound) and fury thing point, from a high tower made of calcified matter, eh!
Engine notes are signature stimulants to the experience. You can still tell, a great deal about how a car is driven, tuned, who made it and where, by engine note.
The Matra was wonderful, BRM unique. Cosworth’s whiny, but efficient. Turbo era cars, flat coming, and in bloom, going. Historic meetings are symphonies, engines had virtually national notes as they do today, listen carefully.
Far and away the most visceral sound and effect is the American Top Fuel 8.2L V8 engine, 8000+HP on 90% nitromethane. One writer described it as a noise akin to “The Grand Opening of Hell”, and it is.
Is the engine sound important to motor sport enthusiasts, Max?
That’s the quierie “WELL D’UH!” was invented for. Won’t apologize for the colonialism on that one!
F1 has all it’s ducks in a row for the best season in recent memory.
One final thing, can we have a limit per individual for comment, perhaps one and a supplimentary. It’s a big world invitation, not a private club newsletter.
JUAN RICO:
January 24th, 2010 7:16am
God!!!!! what a bunch of bootlicks….”great podcast guy’s ,I felt as if I was in a magical mystikal wonderland”….what is this…
Like a bunch of blokes had to try really hard to sit in a room and talk about something they like…ooooh the effort!!!
I’m glad you do these podcasts,and I’m glad I listened to it,because unlike some of these comments people make that are just soooooooo BORING !,going on about the slightest detail about a piston ring on a 1958 engine,or some statistic that would have collected dust in some ancient car book that nobody ever heard of,in the vain attempt that we would all be sooo impressed.
Unlike my arch nemisis TANVEER,whose sadistic hatred for Michael Schumacher,is grass roots and interesting,as was your podcast.The mere fact that a podcast between Tanveer and myself would probably call for the attendance of riot police is of no consequence..Im sure we could beat out an agreement somewhere along the line.
So yes,it was nice to hear talking on a flat plain that even racing cavemen as myself understand,not the slightest mention about a piston ring in sight.
But perhaps maybe a watershed podcast,get some drinks in,give it a Derek & Clive angle,maybe a piano and some songs,Even maybe offend some old actor,You’ll be all over the papers,then you’ll be rich….RICH!!!.
This time next year you could be millionaires
Andrew Scoley:
January 24th, 2010 5:37pm
Mercedes, Ferrari, Cosworth, Renault,Toyota,and BMW are or were all building their own engines and some were supplying other teams. Assuming they don’t have access to each others data and despite the fact they are building to a set of specifications, can someone explain why this should be cheaper than being given a free hand other than capacity, fuel type and materials used? Most of the manufacturers were not in favour of going from 10 to 8 cylinders suggesting that a rev reduction would have been a much cheaper option. I think 4 to 16 cylinders, 3.5 litres, one fuel, max 20k revs. The likelihood is that most would go for a V10. However, in a bid to cut downforce, perhaps a ruling on the width of the chassis making smaller venturi ares etc would favour boxer engines with their lower centre of gravity. Whatever, I agree that engine sounds are very much part and parcel of racing, Ferrari Flat 12 and V12, Alfa V12, Matra V12 and the good old DFV in amongst that lot added up to a lot of pleasure! We need a racing man in at the FIA-Carlos Reutemann anyone?
Tony Geran:
January 24th, 2010 10:59pm
Just a last thought on the subject of motor racing noise. Wasn’t there a character in John Frankenheimer’s “Grand Prix” who used audio tapes of F1 cars as a Viagra substitute? Given Max’s well publicised private life, I’m amazed he didn’t find a similar use.
Mario Carneiro Neto:
January 24th, 2010 11:11pm
Andrew
Ari Vatanen was a great raceman… Apparently the automobile clubs decided we didn’t need one
joe brown:
January 24th, 2010 11:21pm
JUAN RICO:
Have you had a bad day?
Hugo Boss:
January 25th, 2010 8:07am
I’m not so sure about JYS’s theory that the past 15-20 years have been lacklustre in terms of driving talent. Maybe. But maybe the domination of Schumacher served to make the rest look ordinary.
I can’t help but think the average standard of driving is way higher now than ever, simply because the grid is not full of chaps who began motor racing when they were 18 but kids who started when they were four. Lacking in personality for certain, but not talent I suspect.
A point of interest: If we look at the post-Lauda era (1986 on) then after Bahrain Schumacher will have raced against the best drivers over a 25-year span. He dealt to Piquet, was not outshone by Prost, Senna or Mansell, saw off everyone else and now comes back to take on Hamilton and Vettel.
Help me out historians! What other champ’s career spanned a generation? Nuvolari?
R Tanveer:
January 25th, 2010 1:48pm
That’s hardly only JYS’s theory!
After Senna was killed only Hakkinen was left until Raikkonen/Alonso came along to replace the older Finn. So, there really wasn’t any notable talent for Schumacher to beat.
Hakkinen, in fact, didn’t get anything to drive until 1997.
Who was Schumacher beating in 1994/1995?
Answer: Williams test drivers/Senna’s replacements who were definitely NOT from the top drawer.
Further, Schumacher only dominated Journeymen Number 2 teammates who’d won nothing (until they finally stepped into dominant cars in the 2nd seat – notably Herbert, Irvine, Barrichello and the then very green Massa).
It’s a sad fact that Ferrari and Schumacher fostered an environment where no other proper top line driver would genuinely feel that they would would get co-equal treatment.
So…they didn’t bother signing for Ferrari.
That’s why Alonso didn’t go there and it took a while for Ferrari to finally sign Raikkonen as a legitimate non-Number 2.
The era from May, 1994 – 2004 only had one other Ace in the field at any point in time.
It was the WEAKEST driver era EVER, compounded by the 2nd Benetton/Ferrari seat being occupied only by contractual Number 2s. [even if the likes of Hill, Villeneuve, Montoya were any good, they certainly weren't going to go to Ferrari as Schumacher's number 2...which left Journeymen like Irvine and Barrichello to take the #2 seat.]
As I said, JYS is hardly the only one who thinks this.
JUAN RICO:
January 25th, 2010 4:06pm
Oh here we go again! Tanveer’s insaciable appetite for putting the most successful F1 driver of all time down.
Have you heard what all the drivers are saying about Schuey’s return,above all his latest greatest competition Alonso,who called him a legend…….even Hill and Coultard acknowledge him as one of the greatest,and they fought with him,and they hate him less than you do.
If your argument be true that he was driving against no competition at his peak,the same could be said of Fangio,who lets face it was not loyal to any team,he would happily join any team that had the fastest car,and there are no other famous drivers of his ilk to speak of in his era,
So was Fangio just a normal driver?
At the end of the day,,as much a fan of Schuey as I am,,it’s impossible to name the greatest driver of all time,different era’s,different cars,,drivers dying.who can say.What we can be sure of is the exceptional career of Micheal,,even with the black spots,,which most drivers have had or likely to in the future.
We do have a period of extremely good drivers,but unfair to demote past grids as no competition.each and every driver has talent,,but some shine brighter than others.
Michael Spitale:
January 25th, 2010 4:46pm
The Kimi Raikkonen gang…. Kimi is not even in F1 anymore and his crew(me included) come out for blood any time Kimi gets bashed around. Nigel does not care for Kimi and does not hide it. He has every right to feel that way. The thing that has always confused me though is that Nigel’s fav is Giles Vill. and Kimi is the closest thing to Giles I have ever seen. A real throw back driver. Does not like politics, will run full bore into a cloud of smoke(Panis’ smoke at Spa in 02) without knowing what is on the other side… loves a lose car and loves to race snowmobiles…. But Nigel just can’t seem to like him
Dave Cubbedge:
January 25th, 2010 5:19pm
I think Nigel or anyone who knows would tell you that Gilles was very approachable, very down-to earth.
That’s where the differences start between Kimi and Gilles. And I can tell you first-hand, I saw them both race, there was and still is no-one like Gilles (except maybe Nuvolari) and for Kimi there are many clones.
Don’t forget also that Gilles lived to be fastest every lap, every corner, every race. The championship meant little to him. Kimi has had too many days where he was asleep to be on the same level. No comparision in my humble opinion!
R Tanveer:
January 25th, 2010 6:54pm
Well, I don’t rate Damon Hill, Coulthard, Jacques Villeneuve and Montoya amongst the Top 20/25 All Time Greats.
There was only 1 other true/pure Ace at any given time during the 10 seasons following Senna’s death and that was Hakkinen…followed by Raikkonen/Alonso, neither of whom had anything to drive until 2003/2004.
Shumacher won all his titles in a VERY WEAK driver era and – unlike Prost, Mansell and Senna – never had the stomach to partner another true Ace under co-equal conditions.
Gilles I probably rate somewhere 8th-11th Greatest All Time.
Kimi I probably rate 15th-17th greatest All Time.
I don’t even rate Irvine or Barrichello.
JUAN RICO:
January 25th, 2010 7:15pm
Ok Tanveer,,Schumacher is just very normal,I am beaten,,I can no longer fight for the German.He has to prove himself now.
Besides there is something out there even worse than our continual bickering……………………………………….THE KIMI RAIKKONEN PROTECTION GANG….hoards of blond boring men,only dressed with vulcanized black leather posing pouches and black caps,scouring the country bashing anything remotely exciting or not made in Finland…
Good god! where did i get that image from,,I must stop going into that pub,not bin the same since the new management …foreign fellows..from somewhere Finland I think…
Poor little Kimi,If I could sing and play an instrument,I’d write a sad song about his short career and how nobody wanted him anymore..
Hugo Boss:
January 25th, 2010 7:30pm
Quite how people like R Tanveer, or me for that matter, rate people hardly matters except to ourselves.
Personal ratings depend on personal criteria. If you think drivers who didn’t win much can figure in a top 10 then sure, include Gilles. I wouldn’t.
But then, some won’t rate Senna or Schumacher because they didn’t epitomise Edwardian English sporting values.
If I had to put my life in the hands of a driver for 300km then I’d happily settle for any of the usually mentioned names (except Gilles! A maniac!) — but if it was life at stake for 300km, every two weeks, in all conditions, for the next 15 years ….. Fangio or Schumacher please.
I’d like our podcasters to tell us what they take into account when doing their rankings. I would hope the fact Gilles was a guy you could hang out with and Kimi isn’t wouldn’t influence how you rated them as drivers.
joe brown:
January 25th, 2010 11:14pm
JUAN RICO
Schumacher’s reputation will always be tarnished because he cheated.
He always wanted to play with a loaded dice.
In other words he cheated.
joe brown:
January 25th, 2010 11:17pm
PS. had Senna have lived would there have been only 1 point in it at the last race?
I don’t think so.
joe brown:
January 25th, 2010 11:24pm
Just read another comment from JUAN RICO
Please answer…
Did Senna ever park his car at Rascasse in quali…
I don’t think so
JUAN RICO:
January 26th, 2010 2:43am
Big deal,as with convicts who have spent their time,Schuey was punished,and it was severe enough it cost him his eight world championship
Off course we refer to the three events that scarred his career,the British always knock someone when they are successful,It was only the British that made such a big deal about the Englishman that had a famous father and again with the Canadian who also had a famous father.
I happen to think that the Renault/Piquet scam was far worse than all three of Schuey’s hick ups,But it was laid to rest fairly quickly.And with the world cup approaching,no doubt we will see countless video’s of Maradona’s hand of god,and remember 1966.It happens all the time here.
Let it go.3 fouls in 15 years doesn’t account for the slamming he gets.
People are coming back to F1 especially because he is back,,You heard Alonso say F1 just wasn’t the same without him.
And I’m not anti Senna,he was a gifted driver,but even at the time of his death and taking into account his age,he would still not have achieved as much as Schuey.
Dave Cubbedge:
January 26th, 2010 2:56am
hugo, you missed the point. nigel maybe hung out with gilles, but I didn’t, I only saw him race, and do it with more dedication and conviction than anyone else in his era (except maybe Mario). to have even Enzo Ferrari put him up with Nuvolari says it all about what the man was about. it is no fault of his own that he happened to be Canadian and these people are outgoing and friendly by nature.
Steven Roy:
January 26th, 2010 4:43am
I have read some rubbish from Schumacher fans over the years but this is top drawer stuff. Name me one other driver who has the record of offences that Schumacher has.
Arithmetic clearly isn’t your strong point. Three events?
1. Ramming Damon Hill
2 Ramming Jacques Villeneuve
3. Putting Hakkinen on the grass going up the hill at Spa at high speed
4. Pushing Alonso off the track on to the grass on the Hangar Straight at Silverstone at nearly 200mph
5 The Monaco parking farce
6 The Schumacher chop at the start of every race that resulted in the obscene one move rule.
7. Sticking his own brother in the pitwall at the start of a race.
Add to that the dodgy cars such as the launch control and traction control on the Benetton, the Ferrari magic bargeboard which was illegal on the car in Malaysia but was magically declared legal in Paris on a jig a few days later etc etc etc.
That’s OK then. So it doesn’t matter that he robbed Damon Hill of a title. It doesn’t matter that he risked other drivers lives by punting them off the track at speed.
How anyone can think Piquet spinning his own car into a wall is worse than ramming another driver at speed baffles me.
What is the difference between Piquet sticking his car in the wall to get a result and Schumacher not being able to stick his in the wall at Monaco apart from the fact that Piquet did a better job and made it look less obvious?
Senna was 34 when he died. Schumacher retired at 38. Had Senna won the 94 and 95 titles they would be on 5 titles each then Senna would have had the 96 and 97 cars that Hill and Villeneuve won titles in. There you are 7 titles before his 38th birthday and Schumacher would only have 5.
If you think Schumacher did not race against a weak grid then you are wrong. That is one thing he will find different when he comes back. It is quite extraordinary how many of the guys who should have given him grief didn’t for various reasons.
Villeneuve won his title then committed career suicide. Herbert and Donnelly were fabulous talents but accident injuries meant they never achieved their potential. Marlboro early in their careers dropped Hakkin in favour of McNish but no-one gave McNish an F1 seat until he was 32. Magnussen beat Senna’s records in F3 but was too idle to make a success in F1.
This is not a comprehensive list by any means. Senna could be added to it for example. So many of the guys who were real talents just didn’t achieve their potential through no fault of their own with the exception of Magnussen and Villeneuve who were responsible for their own underachievement.
It is quite clear that Schumacher benefitted from those circumstances just as he benefitted from Ferrari’s special relationship with the FIA which gave him carte blanche to behave like a thug on the track. He may have won 91 races but how many of those were honest wins?
I am not disputing for a second that he is a driver of great ability particulalry in terms of speed, consistency and driving round problems but the man is a cheat and had a lot of favourable circumstances that artificially inflated his results.
As for Kimi being like Gilles? No. There has never been a driver like Gilles until Hamilton arrived on the scene. Overtaking at the first corner in the first race of his F1 career was pure Gilles. If there ever was any doubt that he is like Gilles then Monza last year dispelled that. He could have cruised the last lap and settled for third but he pushed as hard as he could for the slim chance of getting second and ended up binning the car. He is the same kind of natural racer who just won’t let go when there is a chance of improving his position.
Rich:
January 26th, 2010 1:08pm
Wow. I never thought I would see trolling on the Motorsport website!
It was mentioned in the podcast that there had be a dearth of really top drawer drivers during the Schumacher era and that we are now enjoying a rich pool of talent.
The first thought that came to my mind is: would the current drivers be rated so highly had Schumacher still been around?
We’ll see I suppose, assuming he has lost none of his speed.
I can’t help thinking had Schumi stayed on at Ferrari against Kimi then he would be a nine-time world champion today.
R Tanveer:
January 26th, 2010 1:40pm
Forget Schuey’s cheating.
Forget the weakened (and, then, out-right weak) grid(s) following Senna’s untimely death.
Forget the special relationship between Ferrari and the FIA, especially 2003 when they and Bridgestone conspired to destabalize the Michelin title challengers (RAI-McLaren; MON-Williams) at a crucial moment of the championship.
What will always leave a huge question mark is the weakness (both actual as well as contractual) of the 2nd seats…
- Brundle: Scuppered by Briatore when he got too close for comfort.
- Verstappen: Used as torch dummy for the illegal Benetton fueling rig; Not given the illegal traction control software being used by Schumacher as confirmed by Senna when he sat there at Aida once he’d retired at the Pacific Grand Prix and set his ear to the sounds of the two Benettons. [Senna would have said/done something about it if he hadn't been killed at the next race]
- The “Lunch With…” article with Johnny Herbert in Motor Sport magazine from a year or so ago which highlighted how Schumacher wanted to see Herbert’s data but Herbert wasn’t allowed to see the German’s.
- Irvine: A Number 2 at best…a Lackey.
- Barrichello: A Number 2 at best…as proven by Button in 2009. Fine, he was faster than Schumacher from time to time but on the rare occasion he was, the contract came into play.
- Massa – Only hired because he was Jean Todt’s son’s client. Only hired because the real Aces (Raikkonen and Alonso) had little interest in being the “2nd Ferrari Driver”. Credit to him that he improved enormously during his Ferrari years.
Compare Schumacher’s weak teammates to that of:
- Prost (Arnoux-Lauda-Rosberg-Senna-Mansell)
or
- Mansell (Rosberg-Piquet-Prost)
…and there’s no comparison. Their teammates were Grand Prix winners and Champions, far above any talent level of Schumacher’s lackeys.
How many wins and championships did Prost ’share’ with those Aces? How many points did those Aces take away from Prost?
Too many to recall.
History judges F1 drivers by the strength of their teammates…and of all the multiple champions, Schumacher’s were the weakest out a weak driver era…And if they happened to be occasionally faster…well then they’d get a radio message reminding them of their contracts.
Shame, really.
Dave Cubbedge:
January 26th, 2010 2:25pm
thanks Steven Roy for backing me up on Gilles and thanks Tanveer for putting a lot of my thoughts down for me.
I can’t wait for the young lions of F1 to eat and spit out this Schooey!
JUAN RICO:
January 26th, 2010 3:37pm
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!
Thats all this amounts to,,even my ranting is merely a waste of time,,
I wanna make a deal,,,if Schuey is a complete failure on his comeback,I will never mention his greatness ever again on this site.
If it turns out he is very successful,you guy’s have to back down and acknowledge his greatness.
And when I mean very successful,I mean within the first 3 races ending up on the podium.
Either you or I will have to eat humble pie,
I have already admitted that he has some fowpars in his past,but still think he is the best of all time.
You on the other hand just keep going on about his tainted moments in his career,and that basically he has achieved all his success through cheating,foul play and external assistance .
Think you maybe have more to lose than me,,and hopefully should be eating a considerable amount of pie.
But if you decide not to go along with this..then you have no conviction to your allegations..UNT I VILL BE ZE VINNER
Michael Spitale:
January 26th, 2010 3:50pm
I would not say Kimi “does not go full bore” like Giles…. Kimi has baout triple the fast laps of anyone else in F1…. He also has lost about 8 wins over the years due to cars falling apart….
R Tanveer:
January 26th, 2010 4:23pm
Juan Rico, in the other Blog you and I both agreed that the Podcast team would be the final judge on our disagreement on the ‘weakness’ of the the post-Senna driver era.
The Podcast team agreed that the grids that followed Senna’s death were very weak in relation to those of the 1980s and early 1990s and the ones that started when Raikkonen/Alonso came along in proper cars (circa 2003/2004).
Apearently, you’ve forgotten that post of yours in that blog…so I thought i’d remind you.
None of us are saying that Shumacher wasn’t rediculously successful. All we’re saying is that he was a cheat moreso than most, his teams cheated moreso than most, he won championships in a very weak driver error and he beat team-mates who were Number 2s because no proper Ace in their right mind thought they’d get co-equal treatment in the other car.
If Mercedes have the kind of car Brawn fielded during the first seven GP races of last year, then of course he’s going to be successful. It’s just too bad that Nico is the other driver because he (Nico) hasn’t won anything and his only proper benchmark has been Nakajima – a driver who came with free Toyota engines.
Have a nice day.
R Tanveer:
January 26th, 2010 4:58pm
Kimi Raikkonen will become a legend of motor racing if he even wins one Rally…for no one in histroy has ever won both a Grand Prix AND a Rally.
Raikkonen went mano-a-mano with Schumacher in 2003 in a one year old McLaren (that year’s car was still-born) and pushed Michael to the very edge – who flailed around into Sato at Suzuka for 8th – inspite of the FIA, Bridgestone and Ferrari opportunistically conspiring to destabalize the Michelin championship challengers late in the season. Raikkonen made almost no mistakes in the races that year. Schumacher made a few.
Same for 2005. Raikkonen was flawless in relation to Alonso (who binned it in Canada, for instance) and lost the championship because the Mercedes couldn’t hold their engines together. Kimi lead 10 out of 18 GPs, winning seven but losing the other three through no fault of his own…leaving the trailing Alonso to pick up each one of those three wins.
Then there were the three 10-place engine-change grid penalties which sabotaged Kimi’s championship even further in the second half of that ‘05 season.
Kimi was rated driver of the year – not Alonso – by every proper publication…and correctly so.
39 % of Raikkonen’s McLaren Grand Prix races ended in some failure or other. Imagine how many races and podiums were lost to him thanks to poor reliability on the part of McLaren and Mercedes!?
For Raikkonen to be 3rd on the All Time Fastest Laps list from only 155-odd GP starts tells you something. It should.
There is more to the Ferrari story than Mr Roebuck is telling us…Perhaps one day the real truth will come out other than “Kimi Couldn’t Be Bothered Showing Up…” and “Massa Annihilated Kimi…”.
There are other journalists that suggest Kimi performed Gilles-type heroics in the KERS F60, not only a dog, but a dog with fleas.
Kimi made a complete mockery of poor Fisico – and Fisico nearly won at Spa and was able to beat Alonso from time to time (not often, mind you) when they were at Renault…and had the measure of the highly-touted Jenson Button at Benetton.
Raikkonen is one of three drivers in Ferrari history (and there is 80 years of it) to win the Championship first time out – and Ascari was one of them, driving a car miles better than anyone else. Scheckter is the other – although only because Gilles was an honorable man.
Raikkonen and Schumacher are the only two drivers to win the World Championship for Ferrari in over 30 years.
What’s Massa done?
Michael Spitale:
January 26th, 2010 5:41pm
“Then there were the three 10-place engine-change grid penalties which sabotaged Kimi’s championship even further in the second half of that ‘05 season.”
actually Kimi had 4 10 grid penalties that year to Alonso’s ZERO… think of that… Kimi had 40 grid spots taken away from him in 1 season… what a joke… of course that rule was an’05 rule only, just Kimi’s luck
Steven Roy:
January 26th, 2010 5:43pm
“If it turns out he is very successful,you guy’s have to back down and acknowledge his greatness.”
So if Brawn builds a great car with a huge advantage like it had last year and Schumacher gets the better of a team mate who has won nothing then Schumacher is great?
By that logic Jenson Button is an all time great because he did that last season except he did it against a team mate who was a multiple GP winner. You are not using any logic to form your opinions. It is the Schumacher personality cult all over again. You start from the “Schumi is great” point of view and then twist anything that happens to fit that. This is not motor acing it is religion.
“You on the other hand just keep going on about his tainted moments in his career,and that basically he has achieved all his success through cheating,foul play and external assistance .”
As with all religious zealots you totally ignore anything that does not fit with your vision of your god. You keep say three black spots. I listed 7 plus all the technical stuff but because that doesn’t fit with your gospel you just ignore it and hope one day I will be converted.
I have nothing to lose if he comes back and wins apart from the odd depressing season of having to deal with his deluded disciples. I have acknoledged his strengths and his weaknesses. All I have to lose is a few wasted hours reading rubbish from Schumacher fans. You risk losing your god. Of course you won’t because if he comes back and is rubbish (which he won’t be) you will blame his age, the weather, sun spot activity or any one of a million things that does not challenge your one divine truth – “Schumi is great”
“Juan Rico, in the other Blog you and I both agreed that the Podcast team would be the final judge on our disagreement on the ‘weakness’ of the the post-Senna driver era.”
“Schumi is great”. Nothing else matters to the cult. They will make hundreds of pacts as to what the final decider will be until they win one and then they will recite that one for ever conveniently ignoring all who bare false representation against the blessed Michael.
Fastest laps are an utterly meaningless measure of anything and that is not an attack on Raikkonen who is a driver I love watching. I would love to have seen him and Hamilton go at it in McLarens this season.
Fastest laps are as pointless the colour of the car. Generally they go to drivers who are not winning because the leading drivers late in the race are cruising and when the fuel weights get down and the track is rubbered in someone in the midfield for whatever reason bangs in a quick lap.
“I would not say Kimi “does not go full bore” like Giles…. Kimi has baout triple the fast laps of anyone else in F1…. He also has lost about 8 wins over the years due to cars falling apart….”
All drivers have lost wins due to car problems. Kimi is a bit like Gilles but I think Hamilton is the first driver since who I would really compare with Gilles and I never expected to compare a driver to Gilles. Since he arrived in F1 he has had the same maximum attack attitude and it has cost him a few times when he has overstepped the mark but he will learn his limit and then the rest are in real trouble.
I just think it is a real shame McLaren have Button rather than Raikkonen in the car this season because McLaren unlike Ferrari can build a car that oversteers as both Kimi and Lewis like and the thought of those two going at it hammer and tongs with a car that suits both of them is the most exciting prospect in modern racing.
JUAN RICO:
January 26th, 2010 6:19pm
Gotta be quick as I’m cooking dinner.
I seem to be in a minority here as I am the only person supporting Schuey,
And that just goes to prove my point and theory,
This witch hunt is over nationality,If Schuey was British you would all be as pleased as punch that we had a 7 time world champion.
Forget all them other times he pushed people on the grass,or blocked someone,,they aren’t driving to a picnic!.
And he wouldn’t be the first to do it nor the last.
I’m Spanish and support a German driver,as do many spaniards because we admire his drive and ambition,as we say he has “CAHONES”..he has the German technical brain with a latin lust for victory,
Don’t shun anyone who does that.
Sport would be very boring if everything was easy,,otherwise we’d all be doing it.
And stop going on about Raikononen..nobody wanted him,he was his own worst enemy,,driving his cars into the ground and crashing them,
R Tanveer:
January 26th, 2010 7:01pm
Lewis cost his mechanics bonuses at Hungary in 2007when he deliberately disobeyed team orders in Q3 and then disregarded team requests not to complaining about Alonso’s blocking at the pits to the Stewards.
End result:
McLaren were punished and were excluded from scoring World Championship points at the meeting. WCC points determine prize money in modern F1…and no prize money for McLaren at that event meant no bonuses for the mechanics for that meeting.
Then Lewis lied to the Stewards in Australia a year ago…
The comparison between Gilles and Lewis is a silly one.
The difference is that Gilles was a man of honour.
john read:
January 26th, 2010 7:08pm
I think I have it worked out now. R Tanveer is FOR the Schu, and JUAN RICO is AGAINST the Schu. So how about Motorsport sponsoring a long lunch for the both of them and then taking them for a long walk on a short pier. Gentlemen, please stop. Or, if you cannot, please be brief.
JUAN RICO:
January 26th, 2010 7:11pm
NEVER AGAINST THE SCHU ..JOHN
TANVEER …NO
PIER ………..NO
LUNCH………YES
Hugo Boss:
January 26th, 2010 7:48pm
Well said john read.
Please Tanveer, continue your anti-Schumacher postings on other sites and leave this one to the Motorsport type people.
The worst thing about being a F1 follower is the lack of mature, intelligent bulletin boards. Inevitably idiot teenagers and bombastic asses take them over and bore the rest of us into not bothering.
JUAN RICO:
January 26th, 2010 11:30pm
Being a Schumacher fan you say is idiotic and immature,not to mention lacking in intelligence..
very profound I must say.
I take it that remark is aimed at myself in which case I take exception,this banter was fun,but now I am offended.these blogs are designed for people to argue their corner,whatever their following.
And please keep the swearing off the blog..there is no need for it.
And on a final note as I will not visit this site anymore.I am not so blinkered into believing Schumacher is innocent of foul play,nor that Raikkonen is rubbish,he was an exceptional talent as are most of the drivers.
I always looked forward to any retorts,Tanveer ,thanks for the battle of words,it was fun.
Steven Roy:
January 27th, 2010 2:01am
“And that just goes to prove my point and theory,
This witch hunt is over nationality”
The fact that I have listed all the things he did wrong proves that this is over nationality? I just don’t understand that level of logic. The fact you have not challenged a single point made by anyone against him proves you think they are all true. His nationality is as important as the size of his hat as far as I am concerned.
“Forget all them other times he pushed people on the grass,or blocked someone,,they aren’t driving to a picnic!.
And he wouldn’t be the first to do it nor the last.”
So forget he put drivers on the grass at 200 mph because they don’t matter? They are not driving to a picnic they are racing and it is against the rules of racing to punt someone on to the grass because you can’t beat them fairly.
Name me three other occasions where anyone has pushed a driver off the track at 200mph or stop saying everyone else does it.
“The comparison between Gilles and Lewis is a silly one.”
I am talking about his driving and attitude on the track. Nothing else. I am sure Hamilton has never switched the engine of a helicopter off to cool the batteries.
JUAN RICO:
January 27th, 2010 4:49am
I lied…….with furious latin anger I totally overlooked the fact the attack was aimed at both TANVEER and myself.
I am stunned that we should be attacked for arguing about motor racing on a motor sport blog.
TANVEER as everybody, is entitled to have his own views,as am I.and nor did I find his postings boring.
If like me you find someones post not to your liking or particular argument you are having with someone is of no interest to you…then move on to the next post.
This site is free for anyone to air their views,I dont know who made you Hugo and John Read regulators.
And if Tanveer is a teenager,then he is very intelligent,he has a vast knowledge of F1,and I don’t recall him swearing in his posts.
And JOHN..I am for the schu and Tanveer is against the sch…just to clear matters
Hugo Boss:
January 27th, 2010 7:21am
Fantastic to hear Mario Andretti will be the next podcast guest.
I would love to hear you canvass with him the concept of team mates. As is perfectly apparent from posts here, there is a strand of romantic idealism that suggests aces should demand another ace in their team so they can truly “prove themselves”.
Of course it’s great for us fans when that happens but I can understand why top drivers want teams centred on themselves.
When Chapman signed Peterson, Mario famously remarked: “Tell me where it says there should be two prima donnas in a team.”
That sounds like the basis of a discussion!
Also his attitude towards cheating would be fascinating. He drove for Chapman after all! And he had his 1981 season undermined when Carlo Chiti refused to play the soft-spring cheating game, leaving Mario with an Alfa Romeo that lacked ground effect.
PS: You are right Juan Rico, this is a site for discussions about motor racing. That is not the same as a tedious argument between an anti and a pro. Yes, fun for you and Tanveer, but the rest of us have been there, done that and don’t need to hear it all again for the umpteenth time.
And if Tanveer has “vast knowledge”, why does he write such nonsense? Knowledge and understanding are not the same things!
PPS: An ass is a donkey.
john read:
January 27th, 2010 7:40am
I have another idea for Tanveer and Rico. Why don’t you just exchange email addresses and keep the rest of us out of it?
Anyway, I am also looking forward to Mario next podcast.
And I’d like to see who gets the best MB engines this year (Lewis, Jenson, Nico or the other bloke). Are they all exactly the same? Does everyone get the latest developments together? Do they just deliver the engines to the teams at random? Should we ask Norbert?
PS: The Merc safety car does indeed sound fantastic.
JUAN RICO:
January 27th, 2010 8:26am
You two are quality,You say you been there,and done that…..so that goes for the rest of the us does it.
I haven’t done that and been there,and if myself and Tanveer and Steve wish to continue our discussion we shall,nobody is forcing you to read it,and there’s plenty of space on here for you and your chum to talk about whatever you want,
I see many a post that does not interest me,therefore I move on,I do not imply upon that person that their post be issued elsewhere.
And Hugo,I speak four languages,I had to learn English from age 9,attended Grammer school and have a west London accent.
I am fully aware what an ass is.and the context it can be used in.
There is no such thing as a Bombastic ass
on a farm,therefore the context applied was in a detrimental manner to affect insult.
Because someone does not agree with my plain of thought,I do not think them to be a fool.
Now if it’s okay with you.Back to motorsport.
R Tanveer:
January 27th, 2010 1:07pm
Hugo Boss…
I won’t lower myself to a level that is less than my (relativey high and self-made) station in life but, unlike yourself, I actually don’t hide behind the name of a German apparel brand that’s begining to manufacture Asians cuts in Romania these days.
What ‘nonsense’ have I written?
I write things like:
“Senna noted the difference between Schumacher’s Benetton and that of Verstappen’s as he sat on the Aida wall after retiring from the Pacific GP. To his expert ears he determined that Schumacher was employing traction control whereas Verstappen’s Benetton didn’t have it. He was going to bring attention to it further but was killed at the next race…and so started one of the weakest driver eras in history – until Raikkonen/Alonso came along.”
What have you written?
PS
I have four proper Hugo Boss suits and one black leather belt in my current rotation for work…which means you’re not as special as you think.
Tell us your real name before blabbering on brainlessly.
Have a nice day, Mr Boss.
Hugo Boss:
January 27th, 2010 8:08pm
What nonsense? How about: “The fact is that Schumacher chickened out.”
No grand prix driver ever has been a chicken.
Or: “It’s a sad fact that Ferrari and Schumacher fostered an environment where no other proper top line driver would genuinely feel that they would would get co-equal treatment.”
No “top line” driver ever feels intimidated.
Or — and this takes the cake: “History judges F1 drivers by the strength of their teammates.”
Mmm. That’s why history doesn’t rate Jim Clark? Or Senna? Or Fangio?
Senna only ever had one rival team mate, a then double world champion Prost who he largely shared honours with. (A bit like Schumacher really, except MS was a novice and his three times champion team mate was humbled.)
As for Fangio – how many of his 45 (!) team mates were aces? Check it out: http://ndtv.f1pulse.com/drivers/Juan_Manuel_Fangio/3E3E3B/drivers_profile.aspx
And when it comes to writing, reading other people’s work and rewording it is not writing. Were you at Aida and did Senna tell you this. If not you are cobbling together from published sources. As a 30-year working journalist (hence the pseudonym) , that sort of thing irritates.
R Tanveer:
January 27th, 2010 9:46pm
Sixth round of the championship, Spring 2002, Austria:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yHPQSOziDw
joe brown:
January 27th, 2010 11:31pm
Juan Rico
I’ll cut to the chase:Schumacher is a cheat.
Is that plain enough?
joe brown:
January 27th, 2010 11:38pm
Drove opponents off the track.
Had supplementary team mates
Had traction control(when illegal)
Had launch control(when illegal)
Had fuel filter removed(when illegal)
CHEAT
joe brown:
January 27th, 2010 11:41pm
Shumacher’s name will allwawy be tarnished.
He was a cheat/full stop
joe brown:
January 27th, 2010 11:42pm
Sorry that was always
joe brown:
January 27th, 2010 11:52pm
I have slagged Schumacher off on this forum,because he was a cheat IMO
But i have never derided his driving abilities,he should never have had to do the things he did.
Why cheat when you don’t have to?
joe brown:
January 28th, 2010 12:04am
This is how Hugo Boss should be used.
The Master
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8By2AEsGAhU
JUAN RICO:
January 28th, 2010 1:46am
WOW JOE.
I know I rant about how good Schuey is,but blimey you got a problem mate.
Your hatred runs deep in your veins,your worse than Tanveer..
I can’t even argue my case,as history will record him as a legend,thats not my words,you see and hear it all the time when Schumacher is mentioned.
But as I say to fanatical football supporters that get stupidly upset when their teams lose.why worry,,win or lose,,they will still get in their Astons,Ferrari’s and go to their mansions and count their fortune.
Well It’s not long until we find out how good Schuey is against his younger and so you keep saying ,superior rivals.
I just wonder what people will find to complain about him next.
JUAN RICO:
January 28th, 2010 5:32am
Watched both your YOU TUBE links,
1/Team play is not uncommon,in any team.
2/Senna’s footwork is also not uncommon.he was not the first to invent it
3/Senna was a good driver,but fashion sense was terrible,horrible brown shoe’s and white socks.
4/ Would have selected a pro-Schuey vid link for you ,but there are so many,and so little time,I probably only have another 30-40 years of life left.
R Tanveer:
January 28th, 2010 1:34pm
By the way I just wanted to make a correction to my previous post and link.
That was actually 2001. Austria was the 6th race of the championship that year too!
Of course it happened the following year as well – as we ALL know.
SIXTH race of the season…
Pathetic!
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 12:19am
Juan Rico,let me select one for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNCr8PfY3rs
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 12:22am
Oh and here’s another one.
Sweet dreams xxxoo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_2znhzztdc
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 12:29am
Sorry i forgot about his horrific smash at Monaco.
LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqo_WSG4VMg
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 12:37am
Good god i keep forgetting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgfuoSFerDU&feature=related
Now night night.
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 1:13am
Sorry Juan i just can’t sleep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4QC7rtWm0A
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 1:45am
Sorry Juan i keep having flashbacks,perhaps this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAAbvJGa5mg&NR=1
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 2:28am
When did Mr Schumacher do that.
I’ll save you the bother,he drove past his brother,who was stuck in a wall,lap after lap.
World champion means more than WDC
JUAN RICO:
January 29th, 2010 3:33am
PLEASE HELP THIS MAN
Joe,I’m getting very worried about you.
If it will bring your blood pressure down and help you get a good night’s sleep,
Then I denounce every statement I have made,suggesting Michael Schumacher is the greatest.
I love Formula 1,but it’s not so important that I should have inflicted so much pain and suffering upon another human being.
And I dont cherish the fact you go to bed at night with me on your mind….so please accept my surrender victoriously and get some sleep.
joe brown:
January 29th, 2010 5:23am
Juan,i’m afraid it’s not near my bedtime.
Glad you acknowledge MS is secondary to the GREATEST OF ALL TIME.
And please don’t worry about me going to bed with you on my mind,unless you look like Cindy Crawford or my favourite actress Sandra Bullock.
My blood pressure is fine and best regards to you.
JUAN RICO:
January 29th, 2010 6:28am
PHEW !!!
Steven Roy:
January 29th, 2010 12:57pm
“Or — and this takes the cake: “History judges F1 drivers by the strength of their teammates.”
Mmm. That’s why history doesn’t rate Jim Clark? Or Senna? Or Fangio?”
Clark had double world champions Graham Hill as a team mate. After Clark’s death Hill won his second championship proving he was at the top of his game.
Senna without a chamionship to his name went to McLaren and drove Prost who was by far rated as the best driver of the time out of his own team.
Fangio had Moss who many people regard as the best driver ever as his team mate amd Fangio beat him hands down despite being in his mid 40s at the time.
“A bit like Schumacher really, except MS was a novice and his three times champion team mate was humbled.”
That is a misrepresentation. Piquet by that time was rated so lowly that Benetton didn’t pay him a salary. He was paid on a rate per point to try and motivate him.
When he was offered the opportunity to compete on equal terms with Raikkonen he retired. I agree no driver is chicken but he chickened out of the challenge.
Your point makes no sense whatever.
“Glad you acknowledge MS is secondary to the GREATEST OF ALL TIME.”
Schumacher was never anywhere near as good as Senna but Senna was not the greatest of all time and he was the one who started ramming people at high speed. Schumacher is fast, consistently fast and very adaptable to th car set up but he is week in traffic and too prone to being pressured into mistakes. Senna has all Schumacher’s strengths and one of the best there has ever been in traffic. When Senna raced there was no three blue flags rule for cars being lapped so a driver had to force his way past and Senna was the best of that but he was also prone to mistakes under pressure.
Marty Harris:
January 30th, 2010 12:23pm
Senna’s obviously up there with the greats but it’s easy to forget that in two years togther Prost outscored him in both championships. And Prost didn’t make the sorts of mistakes that blighted Senna’s copybook. Two masters, but only one was exciting – which is why Senna has devotees and Prost has admirers.
Schumacher knockers could do well to heed the point already made, that as a complete newcomer he dealt to Piquet and then removed all doubt by decimating Patrese. Piquet wasn’t a hasbeen – he won a race that season and was sixth in the championship. Patrese wasn’t an ace, but he was a solid benchmark.
It’s likely that ultimately Schumacher would have driven Senna into retirement. Many close to Senna said he was losing commitment and there was the bizarre comment to Prost about racing having no meaning without him. Maybe Senna could have summonsed the strength to take on Schumacher. Maybe not.
Steven Roy:
January 30th, 2010 9:44pm
“Schumacher knockers could do well to heed the point already made, that as a complete newcomer he dealt to Piquet”
Piquet won a race but he was nowhere near at the top of his game.
“Patrese wasn’t an ace, but he was a solid benchmark.”
Ptrese was not champion material. No-one is arguing that Schumacher had outstanding ability but beating Piquet when he did was not the same as taking on Raikkonen when that opportunity came up. Raikkonen was a top driver who was hungry for success. Even beating him in his own Ferrari team would have been a greater achievement than beating Piquet.
“t’s likely that ultimately Schumacher would have driven Senna into retirement. Many close to Senna said he was losing commitment and there was the bizarre comment to Prost about racing having no meaning without him.”
I don’t think Senna would have retired if he thought there was significant opinion that Schumacher was better than him. The reason for the Prost comment was that his whole F1 career had been focussed on Prost because he was the top driver when Senna arrived and Senna focussed everything on beating him. I think the ascent of Schumacher would have resulted in him becoming the target and Senna would not have retired until he had established his dominance.
He was only 34 so there was no reason why he could not keep going. He was de-motivated because he had not had a car he could win a championship in since 91. The 92 Williams had a huge advantage over everything else and even in 93 after most of the technology in it had been banned it was still by far the best car. Senna didn’t sign for the 93 season until after he had tested the car. There is a video on youtube of the launch and only Andretti and Hakkinen are there. You have to believe he would have sorted the 94 Williams had he lived and then he would have had a series of great cars until 97.
In those circumstances with competitive cars by Newey and a new target to aim at it is inconceivable to me that he would have retired until 98/99 at least.
R Tanveer:
January 31st, 2010 2:07am
I am firmly in agreement with Mr Roy.
By 1991, Piquet was well past his prime and he no longer was on an Ace’s retainer. Indeed, he was on his last legs in Formula One and was basically a pay-per-points driver (as mentioned above).
Even in his prime Piquet had been ‘outed’ by Mansell, at that time (1986) a contractual Number 2 who – by contract – didn’t have the use of the spare car which Piquet used to experiment with in practice.
Regardless, Mansell made a mockery of Piquet’s championship status by genuinely out-pacing him dispite the disadvantages.
Mansell, in fact, wasn’t even as good as Prost and Senna.
Senna was significantly superior to Piquet and this was illustrated when Piquet took Senna’s Louts-Honda seat for 1988 and benchmarked himself against Nakajima.
Yes, Piquet was faster than Nakajima but Senna had comprehensively destroyed the Japanese driver by a much greater margin the season prior.
Honda KNEW this and that’s why Honda LOVED Senna!
So to say Schumacher beat Piquet when PK was on his way out is harldy saying much. Of course Schumacher was better than Piquet.
As per Patrese…Well, Ricardo was a Number 2 to Piquet at Brabham in 1983…and then Number 2 to Mansell at Williams in 90/91.
So to say Schumacher beat Patrese – especially when he too was on his way out after 15 years – isn’t saying much either.
Patrese was genuinely no greater than a ‘good driver’ and that’s why Frank Williams enticed Mansell out of ‘retirement’ back to Williams for 1991.
Patrese was a Number 2. As was Verstappen. As was Irvine. As was Barrichello.
Barrichello proved he was only a Number 2 in 2009.
Indeed, if Barrichello had been the lead Brawn driver, the championship would have fallen to Adrian Newey’s Red Bull with Vettel taking the title.
JUAN RICO:
January 31st, 2010 2:39am
Marty
Where were you when I needed help,you got Roy and Tanveer to deal with now,
I can’t get involved as I have sworn not to believe Schumacher the greatest,
For the sake of Roys health,and to make sure he gets a good nights sleep.
Good points made tho,keep it up
R Tanveer:
January 31st, 2010 3:28pm
Question For Mr Mario Andretti in the next Podcast:
Given that we’re discussing relative driver rankings, I am wondering how Mr Andretti would rank his Formula One opponents over the period 1975/6 – 1981/2?
Mr Andretti would rank high – for obvious reasons – but i’d be curious to hear how he’d rank the other drivers…and there were a number of very good ones in a relatively strong driver era, namely (in chronological order):
- Emmerson Fittipaldi
- Ronnie Peterson
- Niki Lauda
- Jody Scheckter
- James Hunt
- Carlos Reutemann
- Gilles Villeneuve
- Keke Rosberg
- John Watson
- Alan Jones
- Nelson Piquet
- Alain Prost
There were some others as well…but I would be VERY interested to hear which ones Mr Andretti ‘rated’ and in what order.
Thanks in advance.
john:
January 31st, 2010 6:55pm
As enjoyable as ever, and who won the game of billiards one could hear going on in the background?
Marty Harris:
February 1st, 2010 2:57am
I love the passion on this website! But I suspect some of us are so passionate in our views that we let that override rationality.
Steven Roy is entitled to ponder on how much gas Senna had left in the tank, but the fact is that those close to him had doubts. If Syd Watkins tried to convince him to retire because of his ambivalent state of mind, then I’m inclined to think that with all due respect to Steven, I’ll go with Syd.
And as for the dissing of Piquet in 1991. Well sure he wasn’t at his usually considerably underrated peak. Maybe he was only the fifth or sixth or seventh best driver in the world ….
Cmon guys, a triple champion, coming off a season so poor he was put on an incentive pay system, who responded and raced hard for points and won a race … he was no hasbeen. Look at the 91 field and ask yourself, which of these drivers would not have considered Piquet a prize scalp? Only Senna, Prost and Mansell. To say that beating Piquet “is hardly saying much” is taking things a bit far!
The F1 world in 1991 hadn’t had a chance to see most of Schumacher’s strengths — his consistency, work ethic, team-building ability, development skill, racecraft — nor was the ruthlessness yet apparent. So based just on what he did in the car, and what he did to Piquet, every man and his dog back then had him destined for greatness.
Senna arrived on the scene similarly. And so did Hamilton.
I think the tone of debate on this excellent forum would be improved if combatants would remember that just because you prefer Driver A to Driver B, that does not mean Driver B is overrated, mediocre, lucky, a cheat etc.
When you have debates and start chucking names like Fangio, Clark, Senna, Moss, Schumacher, Prost, Stewart into the ring, well let’s face it, we’re dealing with the pantheon. These are the sublime talents. I suspect any difference in talent among them is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals.
JUAN RICO:
February 1st, 2010 7:44am
I hope your reading Marty’s words….Tanveer and Roy…
The whole concept of why it is beyond your belief that someone should actually admire the talents and work ethics of Schumacher…perplexes me.
If we lived in a perfect world,then only Manchester utd fans would actually come from Manchester.Some people that support Arsenal have never even heard of Highbury yet alone been there.
Does that mean that I should spurn them as inadequate fans of the sport.or even underestimate their intelligence..
I followed Michaels career from the start,the new kid on the block was a breath of fresh air,and mighty impressive he was.and as strange as this sounds,my admiration grew larger as more people hated him….that’s loyalty for you..and I’m not even German
R Tanveer:
February 1st, 2010 1:55pm
Sorry but by the start of 1991, Piquet was no longer a top line Ace capable of consistently living with the best. I suggest you look at the Lotus-Honda seasons of 1987 (Senna-Nakajima) and 1988 (Piquet-Nakajima). The differences were stunningly glaring. Often Senna was 10 to 15 grid places ahead of Nakajima who got within 5 spots of the Brazilian only once if I recall…at ‘home’ – at Suzuka. The following year Piquet was nothing like as quick and even got out-qualified by Nakajima. There were a few occasions where Piquet-Nakajima actually shared the same row of the grid! Honda knew how much faster Senna was from their banks of data, etc.
As the 1980s were coming to a close, Piquet wasn’t remotely being talked about in the “Top 4″…which had become Senna-Prost-Mansell-Berger. By the Start of 1991 even Alesi was being seen as a driver to be reckoned with and being rated ahead of Piquet.
Piquet was well past it and that’s why Benetton poached Schumacher from Jordan. No one is arguing that Schumacher wasn’t superior to Piquet…No one with even half a brain would argue otherwise.
As per Schumacher, he cheated against Hakkinen at Macau before Mercedes bought his Jordan drive into F1. The genesis of Schumacher as a cheat is that Macau weekend against Hakkinen. It’s a shame that we have people who admire habitual cheats. Not only was Schumacher a habitual cheat, but he only wanted teammates that were not from the top drawer. Not only that, but he did everything to ensure those weak Number 2s remained contractually bound to do his bidding.
Johnny Herbert will tell you that as soon as he got within a tenth of Schumacher, he was told that he couldn’t look at the German’s data but it wasn’t going to be a reciprocal arrangement. Not with Flavio, Symmonds and Brawn in the German’s camp.
It’s in a “Lunch With…” article from Motor Sport Magazine from about a year and a half ago. Herbert – as everyone knows – had a nasty near career-ending shunt in late 1988 and had to drive with a fair degree of pain through much of his F1 career, including 1995. So, Johnny wasn’t the driver he might have been if he hadn’t smashed his legs months before becoming a Formula 1 driver.
Steven Roy:
February 1st, 2010 2:12pm
I well remember the prof’s statement but I believe Senna was in that state of mind because McLaren had been unable to give him a car that he could challenge for a championship with and he had watched Mansell win a championship in a car that is still considered the most advanced car ever and then his nemesis Prost who he had driven out of McLaren had moved to Williams and won a fourth title.
Senna did not commit to the 93 season until after he test drove the McLaren so at that time his ambivilance was clear to everyone not just those close to him. In that state it makes more sense to stop racing than to carry on but by 94 he was in the Williams which had problems at the start of the season but was capable of being a championship challenger and there was another claimant to his mantle of the top diver in the sport. Given the change of his situation in 94 I find it inconceivable that he would not have continued for a few years.
Most of the F1 world was well aware of his ruthlessness when he arrived. What he did to Hakkinen at Macau had been reported widely. He may not have made such a move in F1 at that stage but his capability to make it and his preference for ramming an opponent rather than losing had been established.
It is beyond me why you think those are my beliefs. I have mentioned his strengths in my previous comments. His speed, his ability to consistently produce fast laps, his ability to drive round car problems and his team building are all admirable. It is just that for me and many others those are outweighed by his ramming and cheating. I don’t care how many good qualities a driver has if he puts another driver’s life at risk rather than give up a position then I am never going to understand why people think he is the best thing since sliced bread.
That is the normal pattern with his fans. Alex Ferguson syndrome. Everybody hates us and we will show them.
There would be Man Utd fans in a perfect world?
Steven Roy:
February 1st, 2010 2:13pm
Why doesn’t blockquoting work on this site?
JUAN RICO:
February 1st, 2010 3:52pm
Look you two!!!!!!!not only content with having a go with my democratic right to admire and support whom I wish.
You begin to use my quotes….get your own!!!
Don’t think that people haven’t worked you people out…..not the Anti-Schuy stuff,,thats fine..you are entitled to your hatred and views..
It’s the constant statistics that you come out with,you must have have every F1 annual that was ever printed….you know the ones…with a picture of Schuey on most of them.
All you do is quote statistics from those in a vain bid to impress everybody you have an amazing knowledge…some sentences even look as if you just copied it and posted them on here.
My posts are about passion for the sport,you just knock anyone who doe not comply with your way of thinking,please let me hear your passion and originality,not technical derge from 25 year old annuals.
As far as a continual cheat as you brand him.Can you really see the world media still labeling him as a legend if he were a continual cheat.even if drivers do not admit it..they are in awe of Schuey’s ability and career…
R Tanveer:
February 1st, 2010 7:58pm
Juan, I haven’t ‘copied and pasted’ any of my sentences and I don’t ‘hate’ Schumacher. Heck, I don’t even know the man…so why would I ‘hate’ him?
We’re all passionate about Formula One, but I – for one – have little passion for a constant cheat who either shied away from allowing serious in-team competition or effectively scuppered it (as per contract)…that’s until he no longer had the pull to do so anymore (Raikkonen).
Juan, you must surely understand that the mainstream media are only interested in ratings and hype and tend to run far away from printing stories which would get them sued. Similarly the specialist media.
Question: Why else do you think all the members of the Podcast team have refrained from chiming in?
Answer: THEY DON’T WANT TO GET SUED!
It’s as simple as that, Juan.
As per being in ‘awe’…well Raikkonen and Alonso certainly weren’t in ‘awe’ back in 2003 and 2005 – and I doubt Hamilton and Vettel have any interest in doing anything other than winning the championship…THIS YEAR! Massa will also feel that these are different circumstances because he’s no longer a contractual Number 2 and has improved considerably since 2006. And Keke would have told Nico to take’Schumi’ to the cleaners – if he at all has it in him to do so. (I don’t think he does…but we shall see)
Steven Roy:
February 2nd, 2010 3:43am
“Look you two!!!!!!!not only content with having a go with my democratic right to admire and support whom I wish.
You begin to use my quotes….get your own!!!”
No-one is disputing your right to support who you want.
“Look you two!!!!!!!not only content with having a go with my democratic right to admire and support whom I wish.
You begin to use my quotes….get your own!!!”
Just checked through my last few comments and there is not a single statistic in them
“Can you really see the world media still labeling him as a legend if he were a continual cheat.”
So you are now saying he didn’t do any of the things we all know he did do? He did all of them. I saw all of them being done. There was worldwide TV coverage of all of them. What the press say is irrelevant and if you are old enough to use a computer you are old enough to know not to believe the press. If the world media call him a whale he will not instantly have the ability to stay under water for half an hour. What they say is irrelevant because we all know the facts.
I should also say I have never read any of the annuals you speak about and everything I have written throughout this conversation comes from my head and not some book or website.
Passion is all well and good but you have to have some grasp on reality to go with it.
JUAN RICO:
February 2nd, 2010 10:13am
NOW,not only content with copying my quotes once,,you do it twice….get a grip man,
Yes I am aware of what Schuey did,and yes it was a stain upon his career.
I am old enough,thank you.to know the difference between good and bad,I am also old enough to know the difference between lust and love.
And in racing terms,that’s the difference between a racing driver and a driver that races.
As I have said so many times before,,Schuey doesn’t have the monopoly on cheating,it goes on all the time,and a lot of it we may never know.
But I can understand that being at the top of his game,he is open to lots of criticism which is not uncommon for this country’s media to do.It happens to anybody that is successful,It happened to Hamilton,and it will happen to Button.
I can assure myself that even though I may lose the battle with you two,the views on Schuey are completely different abroad.
Maybe it’s the Hill thing that we can’t forget,just as with the hand of god,whenever we play Argentina,it all we think about.
Maybe it is the British way of thinking,I can only go with what I know from living in 2 countries.As Alonso said,he had some intense racing with Schuey….which he missed when he retired.Because he is much the same as Schuey,a racing driver..and the Spanish love it.
It was good to see Schuey back behind the wheel,up to speed.I know we can’t go by anything just yet,but refreshing to see a very interesting line up this year,and this may surprise you,but I wish Raikkonen was there too.
Steven Roy:
February 2nd, 2010 2:00pm
Quoting is normal practise to show the point that a comment is replying to. You must have seen it elsewhere on the net. Quite why this site does not allow blockquoting is beyond me.
I am not English so Maradona and Damon Hill don’t affect me at all. As usual with the Schumacher cult you focus on one tiny detail and try to spin something from that. I have previously mentioned incidents tha involved a Canadian, a Finn and a Spaniard but as with all members of the cult you asume any criticism has to be based on petty nationalism as it is inconceivable that anyone could actually object to his cheating.
If you think it is only a British thing then you need to visit more websites. I know people from dozens of countries who think the same as me just as I know people from dozens of countries who think any criticism of him is due to nationalism, jealousy or stupidity. It would really help raise the tone of these discussions if you dealt with the facts rather than constantly attempted to find some non-existent cause for my criticisms. The root cause is simple. I have no resect for anyone who is prepared to put someone else’s life at risk to gain or hold a position in a race. It is simple as that.
JUAN RICO:
February 2nd, 2010 5:47pm
Funny how my posts that don’t reach the pinnacles of ANORAK land,seem to continually raise a response from yourself and Tanveer.
NO I don’t mention tedious facts about racing driver blowing their nose years ago,and the exact content therein…and the time and weather conditions.
I may not be as knowledgeable as you where F1 history is concerned.
But I know what I like..and I like a fighter,and a winner.
I REPEAT myself when I say,I accept your view,,that’s fine.and I keep saying that everywhere there is cheating going on,,it is not just the territory of Schuey.
Do you live in a fluffy wonderland,where everything is covered in bubblewrap and cotton wool.
Maybe just to please you,they could fit indicators onto next years cars,heck…just do away with car’s,,and let them run around the track.
These drivers get paid millions,,let them earn it…it is dangerous.we know that,,they know that….people only watch moto GP for the accidents.
So Roy,,if my posts are beneath your superior snobbery….don’t answer them…Don’t count my admiration as stupidity
Steven Roy:
February 2nd, 2010 8:02pm
“I REPEAT myself when I say,I accept your view,,that’s fine.and I keep saying that everywhere there is cheating going on,,it is not just the territory of Schuey.
Do you live in a fluffy wonderland,where everything is covered in bubblewrap and cotton wool.”
My objection is to him risking the lives of other drivers. Who else with the exception of Senna did that? I really don’t get the cotton wool point.
“These drivers get paid millions,,let them earn it…it is dangerous.we know that,,they know that….people only watch moto GP for the accidents.”
Drivers are paid for their promotional value and their driving ability not for the risk of being rammed by someone having a temper tantrum.
Why bring Moto GP into this discussion it has no bearing on Schumacher at all and I watch it because the wheel to wheel racing is the best around just now and they have Valentino Rossi who has won as much as Schumacher without the slightest allegation of any wrongdoing against him.
“So Roy,,if my posts are beneath your superior snobbery….don’t answer them…Don’t count my admiration as stupidity”
Either you misread or misunderstood my comment if you think I said you were stupid.
The reason your posts always get a response from me is that I have seen a lot of good sites ruined by Schumacher fans and I refuse to ever back down to them and live in hope that one of them will base their comments on the facts and will do as i do and logically address the points made by people who hold a contrary view.
JUAN RICO:
February 2nd, 2010 10:34pm
Okay Roy,lets stop it right there,this is getting as boring as a Raikkonen interview.
plus I’m fed up reading my post in yours..I am fully aware of what I have written.
I expect you visit every motor racing site,hounding Schumacher fans for a hobby.
As if we were rabid zombies scouring the earth for brains.
As for the hard racing tactics,bring it on….ok so your a safe head…but F1 has been lacking the old days of exciting duels..
Firemen,Police and Servicemen risk their lives every day for a wage.
But look,,I understand your view,and it’s a valid one,you are free to air your views.whatever or however mad you may think of me admiring Schuey..But I do,as do many others.The record books are my stats,,I cannot improve on that.
So as with Tanveer,lets put this to rest as a disagreement.It has run it’s course.
And as with Tanveer you wish to celebrate this victory,as you may have done with countless other sites.Please feel free.
It’s a free country…REMEMBER,
joe brown:
February 2nd, 2010 11:51pm
Jaun Rico.
Sorry,Mr Schumacher was a cheat!
Senna cheated,but only to give pay back.
Please don’t go …..PHEW
JUAN RICO:
February 3rd, 2010 12:02am
Yeah JAUN RICO ! don’t go ,,whoever you are..
R Tanveer:
February 5th, 2010 2:54pm
To get back on track, i’m really looking forward to seeing what Adrian Newey has come up with for Vettel and Webber!
We don’t know what fuel loads were being utilised but Alonso, Massa, Hamilton and Button will be licking their lips at the prospect of sending Old Man ‘Shumi’ into an early re-retirement. No doubt Vettel and Webber will also be salivating about their own championship chances, subject to that Renault engine holding together.
JUAN RICO:
February 5th, 2010 6:02pm
I think the grid this year will be so close,The drivers will have little time to concentrate on trying to be-little Schuey.
Even though 3 years away,he has put in a good show,
Testing really does not mean a thing,
Ferrari last year were dominant in testing only to lack race speed when it counted.
I’m sure as last year there is lots of mind games going on.
Hugo Boss:
February 6th, 2010 10:56am
Right on R Tanveer: Jenson Button, who arrived heralded as the next great thing and goofed around year after year non-achieving before fluking a championship, is exactly the calibre of driver required to send Schumacher into a “re-retirement”.
It’s one thing to not like Schumacher, but to imagine a lightweight like Button is superior really does demonstrate a frightful lack of understanding of this sport.
I’m tempted to suggest you get off your high horse and use your intellect, but frankly it’s more amusing for you to stay on it. The rest of us get a laugh that way.
JUAN RICO:
February 6th, 2010 12:01pm
Oh my god…I actually agree with Hugo…
If anybody is going to give Michael a run for his money,it’s the likes of Alonso,Hamilton and Vettel,they do seem like the class act out there.
And if that KUBYASHI….however you spell his name..has the car under him..I reckon he will be a storm this season.
He is my 2nd pick of the season followed by Massa
R Tanveer:
February 6th, 2010 1:58pm
I think Vettel will win the championship from Hamilton and Webber and Button. The Ferrari is thirstier than the Renault engine…so Alonso and Massa might be disadvantaged vis-a-vis Red Bulls and McLarens.
Button may be perceived – possibly rightly so – as a ‘lightweight’ in relation to HAM, ALO and VET but the new rule changes play to his strengths (smooth style, kinder on tyres, preference for under-steering car (i.e less-’pointy’-front-end / heavier back end) so to discount him is pure sillyness.
Button’s margin over Barrichello in 2009 was similar to Schumacher’s margin over Barrichello in 2003, but in Button’s case, he actually had to fight Barrichello (who took points and a win at Monza off him) in the championship.
Regardless, it’s silly to totally discount Button. I’m hardly a fan and think Lewis is faster…but that’s why they run the races.
When was the last time they handed out the championship trophies before the season even started?
joe brown:
February 7th, 2010 11:10pm
When was the last time they handed out the championship trophies before the season even started?
When Mr Schumacher was driving for the FIA SORRY i mean the Scuderia
Örjan Bergstedt:
February 8th, 2010 7:55am
I enjoyed the podcast thoroughly, keep up the good work!
Like almost everyone else, I was also a bit startled to hear Max Mosleys views on engine noise. Yet, when you think about it becomes quite logic.
When Max made a reference to people, I suspect he meant the corporate guests, VIPs & celebrities that he surrounded himself with when visiting the pits or strolled down the grid. The kind of people generally ignorant of motor racing, very likely to make comments such as “-Is it always this noisy?” or “- What? There aren’t any silencers on these cars?” etc.
Wich reminds me of an anecdote from, I believe, the Hungarian GP 20 years ago.
At the qualifying press conference, Derek Warwick at the time driving for Arrows, described how he was suffering from brakes problems and thus unable to brake late enough to post a quick time.
An american lady went on to ask him “- Couldn’t you use the handbrake (parking brake) then?”
Apparently even the affable Warwick short of an answer then!
joe brown:
February 8th, 2010 11:05pm
Juan Rico,when will you understand,that Schumacher cheated?
joe brown:
February 8th, 2010 11:10pm
illegal software,ramming opponents off the track,secondary team mates and tyre suppliers pushing for your teams victory.
Steven Roy:
February 9th, 2010 1:33am
“I expect you visit every motor racing site,hounding Schumacher fans for a hobby.
As if we were rabid zombies scouring the earth for brains.”
Never done that. I only respond when I find a comment on the few sites I visit.
“As for the hard racing tactics,bring it on….ok so your a safe head…but F1 has been lacking the old days of exciting duels..
Firemen,Police and Servicemen risk their lives every day for a wage.”
If you think the excitement in F1 is people dying then you don’t understand what you are watching. Maybe we should go back to the 1930s and have tracks with no protection round them, marshals with no training or safety equipment, ludicrously unsafe car designs and great drivers dying before their time.
Personally I would have prefered Ascari, Clark, Rindt, Peterson, Villeneuve etc to have lived longer and provided even more entertainment on the track but I am sure there are people like you around who get more enjoyment out of watching them die than watching them drive.
Drivers are not paid because of the risk they are paid because of their performance just as other professional sportsmen are. The risk does not add to the sport in any way as far as I am concerned.
Hugo Boss:
February 9th, 2010 3:12am
Is that right Steven Roy: “The risk does not add to the sport in any way as far as I am concerned.”
That makes about as much sense as Mosley saying how much better racing would be were it quieter!
Here’s a quote from Stirling Moss: “To achieve anything in this game, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
It’s the thrill of watching drivers dabbling on that boundary that does it for me! Even if, thankfully, disaster doesn’t mean the same today as it did in Stirling’s day.
The fact — and this hardly applies just to F1 — is that people who go closer than the others to that boundary of disaster and survive become the immortals, be they warriors, explorers, scientists or artists.
JUAN RICO:
February 9th, 2010 3:26am
Blimey!! I haven’t said anything for 3 days and you guy’s are having a go,,1/ i like being a fan of a cheat,and 2/i enjoy watching people die…
It’s almost as if you miss me….thanks guy’s..i’m touched..
Well just to clarify my point,as my crass style or sense of humour seems to make me out as some horror character…
Off course I don’t enjoy seeing sportspeople die,,I merely suggested that as with many occupations,there is a certain degree of danger involved,even driving down the road has it’s risks.
I also suggest that all drivers in all platforms of motor racing are guilty of driving to extremes.Touring cars would be a bit boring otherwise,,
As for the cheating…well we’ve been over that..If we are to believe he is a cheat,,,then let the media proclaim his titles void.
AND PLEASE STOP COPYING MY QUOTES..
Steven Roy:
February 9th, 2010 3:34am
“That makes about as much sense as Mosley saying how much better racing would be were it quieter!”
So you think we gained more by Senna dying that we would if had had the opportunity to watch him tackle Schumacher?
Surely it is the thrill of watching a driver control a car on the limit of control that makes the sport worth watching. I enjoy it more knowing the driver is likely to walk away from any accident than I did when the driver was likely to become paralysed or die.
Moss has a very old attitude to the sport and has always talked about how great it is that there is risk. I agree with Jackie Stewart that it is wrong that the sport should see drivers dying as an integral part of racing as it did before he started his campaign. As I said in my earlier comment I would far rather had the opportunity to watch all the great drivers I have seen die race for several more years than watch them die. Unfortunately too many of the younger viewers have never seen someone die horribly in a racing accident and have a ridiculously romantic notion of what it means.
Would football be more interesting if David Beckham risked dying from a bad tackle? Would tennis be more interesting if Andy Murray could die from being hit by the ball? Would chess be more interesting if the players risked death if they lost too many pieces? Of course not so why can’t people appreciate what a driver is doing with a car rather than look for a cheap thrill of him possibly dying?
JUAN RICO:
February 9th, 2010 9:31am
I enjoy it more knowing the driver is likely to walk away from any accident than I did when the driver was likely to become paralyzed or die.
Copying and pasting,,It’s great isn’t it…..Now how do you like it!!!
Your missing the point chum..
Nobody is saying that they enter a death race,but wheel to wheel combat,dicing with death overtaking on dangerous corners is what these drivers love,,that’s why they feed on the adrenalin.
Off course nobody wants serious injury or death,and fortunately it is a rarity these day’s,but It is a risk that all driver’s are fully aware of.
How morbid do you reckon we are,that it would be a thrill to just tune in to watch F1 in the chance of some fatality.That’s the silliest thing you’ve said to date.
One example was my hero being overtaken on the outside of a bend at breakneck speed by Alonso,,,Brilliant!.we all knew the risk,and so did Alonso.
Alonso wouldn’t have been world champion twice not affording such driving
R Tanveer:
February 9th, 2010 12:25pm
Hi, does anyone at Motor Sport or any of the posters here know how many more kilos of fuel MAS-ALO will have to carry for their thirstier Ferraris in relation to the Renault-engined Red Bulls of VET-WEB?
Thanks in advance.
Ben Harris:
February 9th, 2010 8:13pm
Wow guys thanks for another entertaining podcast, made waiting for a plane at the airport fly by….though I apologise to others in the security queue for my rather load gasps- ‘Would they miss the noise Nigel’, I couldn’t quite credit what I was hearing! I’ve heard some things about Mr Mosley, but oh my gosh…..!
joe brown:
February 9th, 2010 11:01pm
Hugo Boss:
February 9th, 2010 3:12am
Here’s a quote from Stirling Moss: “To achieve anything in this game, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sorry Hugo.
Every time Stirling opens his mouth he is a disaster.
Steven Roy:
February 9th, 2010 11:08pm
“Copying and pasting,,It’s great isn’t it…..Now how do you like it!!!”
I have explained it to you before and you said you understood quoting so why are you complaining about it? It may be obvious to you what comment I am answering but it is not to everyone else. People don’t want to have to read back through a stack of comments to understand the discussion.
“Your missing the point chum..
Nobody is saying that they enter a death race,but wheel to wheel combat,dicing with death overtaking on dangerous corners is what these drivers love,,that’s why they feed on the adrenalin.”
I understand the point perfectly as I have been discussing it for decades. No-one with any sense gets into a car to dice with death. Racing wheel to wheel with a competitor certainly but not to risk death at every corner. They know there is a risk but do you really believe that the thing that motivates them is the risk that the next time they leave home will be the last.
Anyone who gets in a race car knows the risks and they know that there is a possibility of getting killed but no-one while they are racing is getting a thrill out of risking their life and I seriously worry about people who watch because of the risk of a driver suffering serious injury.
“How morbid do you reckon we are,that it would be a thrill to just tune in to watch F1 in the chance of some fatality.That’s the silliest thing you’ve said to date.”
I have met people who go to races just to see the crashes and you can see the sheer delight in their eyes when they tell you of some big crash they have seen.
Marty Harris:
February 9th, 2010 11:56pm
Hugo Boss and Juan Rico are bang on. For Steven Roy to interpret their comments as wishing for death is ridiculous; rather, they were pointing out that flirting with disaster makes an appealing spectacle.
Disaster back in the day meant a serious risk of injury or death. Today, as far as the driver is concerned, it’s more likely to mean a non finish and no points. Not a disaster as we used to know them, but still a disaster from the driver’s viewpoint.
Those comments about would tennis, football, chess be more exciting if there was a risk of death or injury … Too right they would! That’s why football, tennis and chess are called games. Games are fun. Games require skill. Games are what kids enjoy too. Motor racing is a sport.
JUAN RICO:
February 10th, 2010 12:44am
I always said that snipers should be placed around a football pitch,picking off players that waste time….and Roy..that’s just a joke.before you copy and paste this sentence.
And maybe my memory is bad,but I don’t remember saying pasting quotes was good..and I can’t be bothered to go back on my posts.But if you can’t beat them,join them
“I have met people who go to races just to see the crashes and you can see the sheer delight in their eyes when they tell you of some big crash they have seen”
Roy …you gotta change the company you mix with,I can’t believe that for one moment,there’s far too few accidents in F1 these day’s,paying the entry fee would be madness,when it costs a few quid to go and see banger racing.
To add my personal experience of the adrenalin rush,I used to work at Millbrook as a test driver,,yeah sounds great,but it wasn’t always fast flashy cars we tested,I have vivid memories of testing a road sweeper around the Belgium Pave.better than Alton Towers,I can tell you.
So most of the time it was pretty boring repeating schedules,but heck I was being paid to destroy cars..
But on occasions,the flash cars came your way,and when you had a V-MAX test,it was your lucky day,as you were flat out around the bowl.
You knew that it was one of the more dangerous tests,and the adrenalin rush was amazing,It allows you to understand these racing drivers,because you just wanted to go faster and faster.even slowing down to 100 felt like you were at walking pace.
One false move and you were brown bread,but that didn’t bother you,,because the adrenalin kicks in,and that’s why some people like motorbikes.although I don’t have the bottle to ride one,,but can understand the rush they must feel at high speed.
It’s in some people,and not so in some,F1 took some knocks because it was becoming a procession of cars following each other around the track.
I’m sure those that agree with me have their own experiences of dicing with death,,doesn’t sound good,but makes you feel alive.my appreciation goes out to all racing drivers…lucky so and so’s
Steven Roy:
February 10th, 2010 1:19am
“Hugo Boss and Juan Rico are bang on. For Steven Roy to interpret their comments as wishing for death is ridiculous; rather, they were pointing out that flirting with disaster makes an appealing spectacle.”
My point is simply that the risk to drivers does not add to the sport. Others clearly disagree with that so you have to question what it is they are looking for if not a serious accident.
“Roy …you gotta change the company you mix with,I can’t believe that for one moment,there’s far too few accidents in F1 these day’s,paying the entry fee would be madness,when it costs a few quid to go and see banger racing.”
Did I say they went to F1? I am talking about people who watch F1 on TV and go out to their local track. Mainly these are people I have met through work.
“You knew that it was one of the more dangerous tests,and the adrenalin rush was amazing,It allows you to understand these racing drivers,because you just wanted to go faster and faster.even slowing down to 100 felt like you were at walking pace.
One false move and you were brown bread,but that didn’t bother you,,because the adrenalin kicks in,and that’s why some people like motorbikes.although I don’t have the bottle to ride one,,but can understand the rush they must feel at high speed.”
In the 80s I did a couple of Formula Ford races. I would love to have done more but simply couldn’t afford it. I knew the risks and considered them seriously before I even went to racing school but the idea that the risk added anything to any of my experiences in a racing car couldn’t be further from the truth. At no time in the car did I ever feel a thrill from risk even though I had one or two spectacular incidents between test days and race meetings. At all time your brain is working out how to control the car and how to gain an advantage. Even spinning the car at close to 100mph the only thing going through my brain was how to sort it and to try not to hit anything too hard. The risk was entirely irrelevant because while I was in the car it did not exist. I don’t believe any racing driver at any level gets any kind of thrill from coming close to an accident.
JUAN RICO:
February 10th, 2010 1:46am
Well it seems Roy,your just not the type of person kitted out for such events,and if your not then stick to sports or activities you feel comfortable with.It’s not your fault,we had many drivers that didn’t like the faster tests,so we swapped cars.
But at the same time you have to understand that there are people that do get the rush,we wouldn’t have any racing drivers otherwise.
And as Marty said,,a disaster these days,thanks to the safety of the cars,is a failure to finish.
You just can’t have F1 or many other sports without the risk factor,and if they thought like you,these racing drivers would be working in offices and factorys,playing it safe.
I am envious that you had the opportunity and money to race,It’s something I would love to do,but alas will never do,
Getting into any car and working out the risk factor,is something nobody should do,It’s something we take for granted.
My closest call was a Tyre blowout at 110mph,on the bowl,,fortunately the car handled incredibly and I managed to save the car.It wasn’t till later that it dawned on me the consequences if it had all gone wrong.
But at the time and shortly after I felt a massive rush,which I wouldn’t deter from doing again..madness maybe,perhaps my life is so boring I need that injection of drama..Maybe that’s why Schuey is back
R Tanveer:
February 10th, 2010 7:38pm
Yes…but what about the difference in fuel loads (in kilos) between the more efficient Renault-engined Red Bulls and the thirstier Ferraris?
Anyone know the answer?
Podcast team, perhaps?
Steven Roy:
February 10th, 2010 10:35pm
“Well it seems Roy,your just not the type of person kitted out for such events,and if your not then stick to sports or activities you feel comfortable with.It’s not your fault,we had many drivers that didn’t like the faster tests,so we swapped cars.”
I really don’t get your logic. I raced, I had accidents and I coped perfectly well because instead of treating it like some kind of roller coaster thrill ride I stayed calm and dealt with the problem. What is wrong with that? Do you seriously believe that is not how racing drivers think? Anyone who is anything other than calm in that situation has less chance of sorting it out.
“Getting into any car and working out the risk factor,is something nobody should do,It’s something we take for granted.”
The logic of that is also beyond me. You have to look at what could possibly happen then decide if you are prepared to take the risk. Jackie Stewart summed it up perfectly. Dying in an accident is not a big deal because you are so busy trying to regain control that you would not have time to think about the consequences but you have to consider whether you are prepared to have your brains scrambled or to end up paraplegic or quadraplegic. If you are not capable of considering those outcomes don’t go on a track.
“It wasn’t till later that it dawned on me the consequences if it had all gone wrong.”
That stuns me. You must know people have died and been seriously injured in accidents at those kind of speeds before so why do you need to have the accident before you realise the risks?
joe brown:
February 10th, 2010 11:07pm
If it wasn’t dangerous,would anyone watch it?
john read:
February 11th, 2010 12:55am
Unless there is a huge difference in fuel consumption between the Renault and Ferrari engines (which I doubt), it’s no big deal anyway. The same factors apply with a lighter or heavier driver. The consequence is to adjust the amount of ballast so that all cars end up at the minimum weight. There is a minor advantage with a lower centre of gravity having a lighter driver and/or a more efficient engine of course, but that’s all. This year without re-fuelling the problem of heavy drivers and/or thirsty engines is not as great as before.
JUAN RICO:
February 11th, 2010 1:15am
Not for one minute do I suggest that near fatalities are the equivalent of some fun fair ride.And like you,in an emergency training kicked in.
The awareness that you are putting your life at risk starts with donning your helmet,then stepping into a car with extra safety provision for fast speed accidents.
I know when I put my helmet on,I was just excited by the enjoyment I was going to have.
Not analyzing the danger I was allowing myself to endure.
obviously if I thought the car or myself were not up to the task,I would not have committed myself.
As per Jackie Stewart’s remark is absolutely correct..” If you are not capable of considering those outcomes don’t go on a track”…
If I considered my chances of dying were greater than my chances of having fun…then I wouldn’t do it…takes a fraction of a second to think about it.
And yes the chances of dying were realistic,but I wasn’t prepared to think about it.I think It’s healthy to live on the edge sometimes,if only to remind us we are alive.
Hell,as soon as you walk out of your house,there’s a risk factor.but we don’t spend time thinking about what situations we could die.
Steven Roy:
February 11th, 2010 3:41am
“If it wasn’t dangerous,would anyone watch it?”
The skill of the engineers and the drivers is the same regardless of the consequences of it going wrong. Football is probably the most popular sport in the world but the risk of anyone being fatally injured is almost insignificant. I watch racing for the racing. It would make no difference to my enjoyment of the skills of the drivers if the worst that could happen to them was get a custard pie in the face. The skill is exactly the same and the same guys would win regardless of potential consequences.
“Hell,as soon as you walk out of your house,there’s a risk factor.but we don’t spend time thinking about what situations we could die.”
And as you were growing up all of those were explained to you and you were trained by your parents to avoid risk. While racing now is way safer than it used to be the risk of serious injury while doing it is orders of magnitude higher than normal lide and therefore you have to assess the risk in the same way that any hazardous industrial process has to have a risk assessment. For me to drive to my limit my brain has to be clear and I would rather assess risk etc before I got in the car than have it pop into my head while I am driving or having an accident. I would hate for the risks to occur to me after an accident.
JUAN RICO:
February 11th, 2010 5:29am
Risk assessment is an automatic procedure that naturally occurs in an instance.It’s hormonal Roy…the Flight or Fight response kicks into action without us making a choice for ourselves..It all depends on how much and how fast your adrenal system produces..then and only then do we step into the fray or walk away.
God this sounds like a post on the B.M.A site,,but it’s something I know about very well,having had problems in this department myself,,but that’s another story.
The point I am trying to make is that,we are all different when confronted by decision making situations when confronting danger..
To use Alonso’s amazing high speed overtaking of Schuey on the outside of a bend…Why was it amazing? because it was dangerous,and rare..it was exhilarating.
And to him,as cool as a cucumber,sat in his car,said to himself “I can do this”
And this separates racing drivers and those that drive racing cars.
If we were to obliterate the risk factor in racing,,why make them so fast? just have them racing around at 30mph,or remote control cars..
I cannot go along with your thought module,as per your check list prior to driving.
And it is a shame that maybe you weren’t just a bit more daredevil,with the opportunity you had racing,,you may have been faster and noticed..
I hate bullfighting,but it was the risk takers and bravest matador’s that made a name for themselves.
R Tanveer:
February 11th, 2010 1:32pm
The minumum weight was raised for ‘10 because KERS for ‘09 penalized taller (and thus heavier) drivers (Raikkonen-Kubica) in relation to their much shorter (i.e. lighter) teammates (Massa-Heidfeld). Posberg, as a result,complained at the start of ‘09 about this ‘penalty’…and the FIA has raised the minimum weight to remove the advantage Massa/Heidfeld/Nakajima had over their respective teammates (which allowed engineers to play around with the ballast in the front of the car).
I understand an additional 10 Kilos of fuel adds 0.3 secs per lap at a place like Jerez.
I don’t think there’s a question of ‘if’ the Ferrari engine is higher on fuel consumption vis-a-vis the Renault engine…the question is how much more fuel will Ferri have to carry v Red Bulls. Remember, the minimum weight increase is NET OF FUEL (i.e., theminimum has been raised with tanks being empty, fyi).
R Tanveer:
February 11th, 2010 2:08pm
* Rosberg (not Posberg); Ferrari (not Ferri).
Sorry about the typos.
Steven Roy:
February 11th, 2010 11:26pm
“And it is a shame that maybe you weren’t just a bit more daredevil,with the opportunity you had racing,,you may have been faster and noticed..”
You think a driver is faster because he is more daring? That is nonsense. A driver is faster because of his ability to judge where to find grip, judge when to brake, carry speed through a corner by balancing the car etc etc. Speed comes from ability and skill not daring. Once you have decided to take the risk of getting in a car risk ceases to exist as any kind of limiting device. The top drivers are not faster because they are braver than the others they are faster because they have more ability. Watch racing at any level and you will find drivers taking ridiculous risks and going nowhere.
You should read what Martin Brundle said about Senna in a wet F3 race at Silvertsone. At Stowe on the first lap Senna knew sailed down the outside and passed all the cars in front of him on a line that should have been slow. The race was stopped due an accident elsewhere and the rain got heavier. At the re-start Brundle decided to try the Senna line and hit a huge puddle and nearly went off. He fought back through the field and on the podium he said to Senna that he had tried his line and nearly went off and Senna told him that he had not tried it after the second start because it was too wet. How did he know? Two drivers both equally daring but with entirely different results because daring has nothing to do with it. Judgment and ability meant one gained from the move and the other lost.