Forum Replies Created
4th August 2015, 16:48 at 4:48 pm #302869
Yes you are right it is radical. I understand plenty enough what you wrote, thanks, and I think it is ludicrous.
Your points for overtaking scheme is significantly worse than double points. At least that was only for one race, this would change the entire fabric of what motorsport (notice the word ‘sport’ in there) is all about. It would be the gimmick to end all gimmicks. Under your scenario, what would there be to stop teams with a demonstrably faster car deliberately qualifying further back on purpose? If you get points for overtaking, what would stop that from happening? It would be a complete farce.
You mentioned above that you need a race with as much action as Hungary to not get bored… Somehow, I don’t think you’re watching the right sport. Dragoll’s comment was perfect. For me it’s enough to watch the best cars in the world driven by the best drivers in the world and see who is fastest. I don’t need a classic race every other weekend to keep me entertained. That is why I would like to see the cars being made more difficult to drive, then we would really see who is the best and at the same time you’d see more mistakes (which is what you want) without resorting to a ridiculous gimmick.
The first car over the finish line wins. If someone drives off into the distance from lap one then that’s fair enough by me, they have the best package and did the best job. Excellence should be rewarded, and it should be hard to overtake in Formula One. That is why I dislike DRS, and it’s why I find artificial, overly complicated gimmicks such as this pie in the sky idea that you have ridiculous.4th August 2015, 15:52 at 3:52 pm #302861
Points for overtaking? Is this some kind of wind-up?
All I can say is I am glad that the powers that be haven’t suggested anything quite that silly just yet (although double points wasn’t a million miles away.)16th July 2015, 16:25 at 4:25 pm #301997
The first partnership between Williams and Renault. I also liked Williams-BMW. And Jordan-Mugen Honda.15th July 2015, 13:14 at 1:14 pm #301956
Sure Clark could have achieved more, and given Lotus won the title through Hill in ’68 (in all likelihood it would have been Clark’s year had he not been killed), Rindt in ’70 and Fittpaldi in ’72 he would have been driving some good cars.
But it seems a bit weird to consider a genuine great of the sport who was one of the fastest men in the history of F1, with 2 titles, 25 wins, 33 poles and numerous wins in other classes (including the Indy 500 and a BTCC title) someone who didn’t fulfill his talent. We saw the best of him (well, those who were fortunate enough to watch him race did anyway), just not for long enough.14th July 2015, 18:39 at 6:39 pm #301928
Jan Magnussen is always mentioned in this type of thread, in terms of a huge wasted talent. He was talked of as the next big thing when he was Mclaren. Verstappen Snr as well.14th July 2015, 17:39 at 5:39 pm #301920
I wasn’t aware of this guy until around 6 months ago when an article was published in Motorsport Magazine. Bertrand Fabi. I thought it was an interesting read.
Stefan Bellof of course. Francois Cevert. Ricardo Rodriguez. And in Indy Car, Greg Moore. Those are the first few that come to mind. Sadly there will be more.7th July 2015, 17:27 at 5:27 pm #301743
God Save the Queen is terrible at the best of times, but Alesha Dixon’s version was pretty cringeworthy.
Forgetting the lyrics of the anthem for one moment (which I don’t like) but the tune of God Save the Queen is just so borig. “God Save our gracious Queen, long live our noble queen…” Eurgh. At least with Fratelli D’Italia or La Marseillaise they have a good tune to them, and before a sporting occasion they would get you pumped up to represent your country (although when you look into the lyrics a bit further they are surprisingly violent.)18th June 2015, 15:44 at 3:44 pm #300208
You are right, it was the Irish flag that was shown, my mistake. I knew he’d had problems with threats made against him and his family and got a bit confused with the details. And yes he considers himself Irish rather than British from what I gather.18th June 2015, 15:24 at 3:24 pm #300206
Simply finishing a race is considered a success at the moment for Mclaren. You really can’t read too much into the performances of the drivers when they have been so badly handicapped by the poor performance of the car.17th June 2015, 15:24 at 3:24 pm #300182
Irvine had problems around that time with Sectarianism, didn’t he? They showed the British flag one race when he was on the podium and afterwards he received death threats (although I think that was a bit later, Argentina 97 according to Wiki). Irish politics and the relationship of Ireland with the British government is an extremely sensitive issue, even more so before the Good Friday agreement. Probably political motivation in the decision to exclude Eddie from the list of Brits to avoid a whole host of problems.
Anyway nobody has yet put Hill at number 1, which I find a bit unfair. Obviously looking at my avatar you can tell that I am a fan of his, but I think that what he achieved in F1 is underrated in a lot of quarters and he doesn’t get the credit he deserves.
To only get started in F1 at the age of 32, to only start racing cars at 24 and then be world champion just over a decade later is simply nothing short of remarkable in my eyes. Also the mental strength and fortitude he showed after Imola 94 is something that again, I don’t feel he receives enough credit for. At the start of 94 he was clearly the number two driver in the team, but then after Senna’s death he was hoisted into the position of number one driver in the best team of the early 1990s, something that must have been an enormous challenge for him. Yes he was inconsistent and he made errors, notably in 1995 but in 1994 and 1996 he drove fantastically. When he was at his best, he was very, very good. Suzuka 94, beating Schumacher in the wet, on merit? Not many people have done that. I have to put him at number 1 for these reasons, not just because he is one of my favourites. And of course, he did something none of the others did, and won a world title.
I find it hard to rate DC, undoubtedly a good driver but he had very good cars in 1995, 1998, 1999 and 2000 and he never challenged for a world title. People like to throw the old inexperience card at DC for his mistakes in 95, but in actual F1 terms Damon wasn’t that much more experienced. I think Damon would have beaten him in 96, the same way he did against Villeneuve. DC was an excellent number two to Mika, but Mika always had the clear edge when the car was capable of winning world championships.
Brundle and Herbert both had very bad accidents, and neither of them really got a good opportunity in a decent car (well Herbert had the 1995 Benetton, but by all accounts that car was very hard to drive and the whole team was set up around Schumacher anyway). Both also had success in sportscars. I think I’d just give the edge to Johnny, I’m not too familiar with Brundle’s F1 career in the 80s, and Johnny of course managed to win three F1 races.
So my order would be: Hill, Coulthard, Herbert, Brundle, Blundell.16th June 2015, 12:32 at 12:32 pm #300140
I remember as a 6 year old boy being absolutely inconsolable when Damon Hill’s Arrows broke down at Hungary 1997 lol.12th June 2015, 18:13 at 6:13 pm #299988
But why would you do that when you can conserve the car and still finish 1-2? It would make absolutely no sense. If you’re going to blame anyone I would blame the other teams for doing a worse job than Mercedes, if there were more than one team capable of winning each weekend Mercedes would have to push their package much harder.
Actually F1 is for getting to the finish line in the fastest possible time and always has been, it’s a bonus if there is racing. Drivers used to routinely win by massive margins in the 50s and 60s, and even in the 80s and 90s there was often a car with a massive performance advantage, think the Newey Williams’ or the Mclarens of the 80s. The only difference nowadays is cars are much more reliable so we don’t have the possibility of the fastest car breaking down as much to add a bit of variation.12th June 2015, 13:38 at 1:38 pm #299978
It would be nothing short of lunacy to let them race as you suggest, if to do so would severely compromise the ability of either car to reach the finish. Canada is a tough car on fuel and on brakes, even more so without a safety car. Also they have to consider the penalties for engine changes.
Don’t forget Vettel is actually not that far behind in the driver’s championship. A DNF for either for either or both Merc drivers and things can change very quickly. It is responsible management to let them race up to a point, but not so much that they compromise a 1-2 finish.10th June 2015, 14:18 at 2:18 pm #299815
The Mclaren had poorer reliability than the Ferrari but it was still faster on the whole. Mika threw away good points at Imola and Monza, although I recently saw his F1 legends interview on SkyF1 where he said that at Monza he was terribly sick with flu and generally felt terrible. No doubt that was a contributing factor to the famous shot where he got caught crying, because he thought he might have thrown it away. Mika definitely had a scruffy year in 99, with more mistakes than 98 and 2000. If Michael had stayed fit, who knows, it could have inspired him to produce his best form but I feel Michael would have been world champion if he had not broken his leg.
On a slight tangent Malaysia 99 is one of Schumacher’s best ever performances, to come back and dominate so clearly on pace after a long period out of the car was very impressive. I mean, he put it on pole by 9 tenths of a second!
Mika was one of my favourite, if not my favourite driver as a kid. I loved his deadpan sense of humour. And I think it is underrated what he achieved after his very serious accident at Adelaide.9th June 2015, 12:59 at 12:59 pm #299806
I agree Mika drove well in the mid 90’s but his 99 campaign counts against him quite a lot for me. If Michael didn’t break his leg then Mika would not be a two time world champion. That’s a big asterisk against his name for me. I’ve seen interviews with Mika saying he found it really hard to cope with the intensity and effort needed to compete for world titles back to back, and this was one of Michael’s biggest strengths. He was very mentally strong. It is no easy feat to compete for the title every season for basically over a decade, especially as during the 90’s he had weaker machinery in a lot of cases. On his day Mika was unbeatable, but he was more inconsistent than someone like Schumacher.
One of Schumacher’s great strengths was he didn’t need a great car to go fast, the Benetton in 1995 was very hard to drive and the early Ferraris the same. You could see year on year as Ferrari improved the car Irvine got closer to him, (although still behind) because the car was easier to drive and he could access more of the performance.
Schumacher would never have tolerated Mika coming to the team so it’s all academic anyway, and Mika didn’t have the motivation anymore after 2000. There are so many variables at stake here, not least because Michael Schumacher’s influence on the team was total, he didn’t just get in and drive the car. The whole team was built around him trying to achieve success. With the set up within Ferrari in the mid 2000’s I don’t see Mika beating Michael. On a more level playing field who knows, I still think Schumacher has the edge with his completeness and consistency as a driver.