Ok finally managed to get a few hours kip, so now feeling fresh enough to post here again (previously I was posting having been up for more than 24 hours, not recommended!).
DanielPT wrote:I understood, ibsey. I was just saying that Piquet, as a driver, had to possess unique qualities in order to having won 3 WDC's regardless its circumstances/luck.
I do agree & stated previously which 'special' qualities I believe Nelson possessed (i.e. superior techincal knowledge, determination & ruthlessness). Having said that Nelson does strike me as someone who is not able to extract those 'special' qualities, day in day out regardless of the team / his teammate situation or even machinery he has underneath him.
I would welcome being proved wrong on this front, but the preception about Piquet that remains with me is when he's in a poor situation / car, he rarely looks like a WDC. As he seemed to show in 1985 & his Lotus days & to some extend in the majority of his Benetton days.
Yet when given a good situation / car he seems to up his game accordingly. Thus seemly able to extract those special qualities talked about from within himself on a more regular basis. I guess you could call it the opposite of Fisichella-itos (sp?). Indeed it might be worth starting a completely new thread on other drivers who may also have this particular characteristic (or even Fisichella-itos) about them.
However back to Piquet, obviously as you correctly stated their was an element of the hunger / motivation & determination not being there in those bad years. However I firmly believe that if a driver chooses to stay in F1, taking the pay cheques & all the other benefits when their hunger / determination is no longer what it was. Then its only fair that he/she should be judged on those times as well as their good times.
DanielPT wrote:He is sometimes overlooked because he doesn't have the raw pace or intelligence of others (in his time).
Perhaps your are right there. However by implication, that statement would suggest that
more often than not there were occassions where Piquet used his other qualities alone to overcome the raw pace & intelligence of others. Whislt i'm sure he did this on the odd few occassions, like DC could also beat M Schumi & Hakkinen on his day. I question whether Piquet could do this more often than not?
Currently I am struggling to think of many great races by him, where won a 'truly against the odds' victory using his qualities alone (i.e. where he didn't have an 'unfair' car / tyre advantage of some kind & didn't just benefit from other drivers retirements/problems). Perhaps you (or anyone else) would be so kind as to help with this?
DanielPT wrote:Don't forget that he won his titles when lots of great drivers populated the sport and I really think he did a great feat.
Indeed I do reckonise that point, but equally it must be remembered that Piquet usually was sitting in at least 'one' of the best cars on the field when he usually beat those other great drivers in a fair fight (IIRC more so than other triple WDC around that time). As questioned previously & also below just how 'fair & squarely' did he beat those drivers by?
BTW I'm not trying to argue Nelson was bad. I'm just saying his abilities seemed more on a par with other single WDC's like Mansell or Rosberg, rather than on a par with other triple WDC's like Senna or Lauda.
Certainly for me a worthy triple WDC should have at least shown flashes of brilliance in those bad years. Off the top of my head, I don't recall Piquet doing anything particularly special in years like 1985 or his Lotus days & perhaps to some extend the majority of his Benetton days (excluding his wins at Benetton which IMO where mainly down to attrition/problems of other front runners). As stated previously that is currently my perception & I would welcome being proved wrong on this however, which what makes this a 'civilised' discussion.
DanielPT wrote:And luck is always part of it. Had Vettel been double WDC if Red Bull didn't had massive advantage over the others? Had Button won his WDC if Brawn failed to find that double diffuser exploit? Had Hamilton been world champion if it was his 08 car that was a dog instead of the 09 one? Or if the rain came 15s later than it did? Piquet knew the rules, knew the circumstances and was at the right time at the right place to take advantage of them. Piquet knew the rules, knew the circumstances and was at the right time at the right place to take advantage of them.
As Mario correctly points out;
it is one thing to take advantage of another team proceeding to shoot itself in the foot (i.e. lucky circumstances for Piquet), as was the case at Williams in 1981 or the mechanical problems Mansell had in 1987, and another thing entirely to take the title through breaking the rules.Of course every WDC wouldn't win without a certain amout of luck on their side. That's not what I have been questioning. What I am trying to question is whether Piquet had more than just his fair share of luck?
Again in the Historic examples of rule bending and breaking thread, there is a story kindly given by PLAYLIFE on page 3 about how Brabham purposely cheated in the 1981 Argentine GP weekend.
So just how much of that race & indeed championship was down to just 'luck' & how much was down to 'breaking the rules'?
So we know Brabham cheated in 1981, from the confession of a senior team member. In that same article it does suggest 'other teams' to have been running illegally light on that particular occassion. But do we know for certain who they were (particularly without a confession from a team member or simliar evidence) Also can anyone prove who gained the most from all this cheating back in 1981 (i.e. who cheated the longest & who started it etc). This is where things becomes slightly grey, to me at least.
However also in that same thread, i'll quote one of your previous posts where you kindly provided details of an interview with Bernie himself at;
http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... 12582.htmlIn this interview, Bernie says the following about his times being Brabham team principal:
But back then, at the times of Brabham, I had a significant advantage. We were the masters of cheating and never got caught.So given what we know about how 'dodgy' or corrupt Bernie could be (i.e. with the fan car in 1978 & illegal fuel in 1983 etc) I would think its a fairly safe assumption that Bernie would have been at the forefront of the teams that cheated in 1981 & 1982 with the watercooled brakes etc.
Furthermore I get the feeling that perhaps other teams only followed Brabham in cheating. They weren't the ones who started it. Which therefore suggests that Brabham & Piquet were the ones who benefited the most from an unfair advantage in those years?
Also to remind you that there is little doubt that Honda gave Piquet a slight unfair advantage with BHP over Mansell in at least a couple of races in 1987. Which IMO therefore made Piquet's 1987 WDC won by 'breaking the rules' rather than just a simply case of luck?
Even though I have suggested all of Piquet's WDC were potenially tained? I do maintain, he was worth of at least one WDC. But I still feel three many be pushing it in light of the above points.
mario wrote:I think that if any of Piquet's titles were to be considered particularly undeserved it would be 1983 given the complaints that FISA bent the rules in his favour by allowing Brabham to continue using potentially illegal fuel (they redefined the limits on the acceptable RON value in order for Piquet's results in the Italian and European GP's to stand).
Do you by any chance the know the background as to why FISA bent the rules in Brabham's favour? Also why didn't Renault kick up more of a fuss about that issue?
If its easier, perhaps you could kindly suggest a website links where I could find out the above?
Right need more rest again after that long post.
) opinion is that I wont be reading Pamphlets post because its stupidly long and clearly done for a wind-up.
(Tony Jardine, 1988)
