Divina_Galica wrote:Rubens just losing out in 2009 is the nearest I can think of.....
Although he was in the title hunt in 2009, throughout that season, I rarely (if at all) ever felt Rubens actually would win the WDC. Somehow he seemed to lack that ultimate desire during critical moments within races. Just of the top of my head (i.e. without checking up on these races) Spain, Turkey, Nurburgring, Singapore & Brazil all immediately spring to mind as races where Rubens demonstrated an apparent lack of of ‘killer instinct’. In all but one of those races (Turkey being the exception) Rubens started ahead of Button, yet somehow in all of those races Barrichello finished behind him in the race.
So in essence, the lacklustre (IMO) title challenges of Rubens in 2009 along with Coulthard in 2000 & 2001 are kind of the reason I have asked this question here. As it would be interesting to explore what, if any, extent was Barrichello's ‘killer instinct’ eroded as a result of playing second fiddle at Ferrari? Remember a key ingredient of any F1 driver is the personal belief that you ARE the best driver in the world. That no other driver can beat you in equal equipment. So does the act of lifting off to let your teammate take the win, because the team have decided he his faster / better than you, eventually kill that personal belief?
All things considered I'm wondering whether Rubens did come out of Ferrari a weaker driver than when he joined Ferrari. I feel he didn’t capitalise on the opportunity to learn certain things from M Schumi’s & therefore develop his own ability yet further during this time. Instead Rubens seemed fairly content just being close to M Schumi generally speaking, instead of trying to beat him. Therefore to my mind Rubens seemed to lose some of his ambition at Ferrari. Instead on focusing on upping his own game (something IMO he did when at Stewart GP, perhaps owning to the guidance from JYS), when things go tended to go bad, he seemed to want to moan about things instead. Although personally I am unsure whether I feel the 1999 version of Rubens would have beaten Button to the title in 2009. I am pretty certain that the 1999 version of Rubens would have provided a more substantial threat than the (damaged) post-Ferrari Rubens actually did in reality.
Massa is perhaps the best example of what I am getting at. In 2008 he challenged for the WDC (abeit with alot of help via Ferrari’s development programme that year). Off the top of my head he had only been asked to give up a position for his teammate once before that season at Interlagaos in 2007. Which would have been asked of any driver in his situation there. Therefore making Interlagos 2007 much easier to cope with for Massa than say Hockenhiem 2010. However since Hockenhiem 2010 Massa has only ever shown his 2008 on very rare occasions, most notably recently. And has never even remotely challenged for a title since (despite leading the WDC’s in early 2010 IIRC). Even though his teammate has nearly won two titles since then.
Personally I find it hard to believe that Hungary 2009, has contributed towards this. Since as said above, Massa was leading the WDC’s fairly soon after his comeback in early 2010 & looked to be doing reasonably well up until Hockenhiem 2010 from what I can remember. Although his time since then has mostly been troubled. I do sense that Massa has only recently turned a corner & rediscovered his ambitions for a WDC instead of allowing the no.2 role to ruin him by him falling into that comfort zone talked above of being close enough to the no.1 driver & just being contented with that. Instead, recently Massa seems to want to up his own game, perhaps by pushing himself to learn & work more closely with Alonso in a way that Rubens never did with M Schumi. I say this because I seemed to remember that throughout the Brazil 2012 free practice sessions, Alonso & Massa appeared to me at least, to work on evaluating tyres, much more as a team than I can recall anyone else do that particular weekend. Probably Massa has this renewed ambition because he must know his time alongside the driver who many consider the best currently in F1, may end in a year or two time. So he has to learn what he can now off Alonso?
Stramala [kostas22] wrote:I think they key thing is, if you've been in F1 for 5 years and you're stilly playing second fiddle, something is very wrong. Early in their careers, they may have to make sacrifies for the team, but eventually those should come back around to you. No wonder GV was so incensed at Pironi, he'd done what was asked of him in '79, and finally when Ferrari looked good enough to win the title again, Didier was screwing up the plan.
That is an excellent summary which I completely agree with. Given Massa has been in F1 & playing the second fiddle role for more than 5 years now. It makes it all the more interesting to see whether Massa can indeed recapture his 2008 form in 2013. Or whether it will be yet more of the same Massa from the last few years, thereby only strengthening the belief that it is very difficult to overcome the demoralizing effect of being a 'proper' no.2.
mario wrote:As an aside, the question of Peterson's future success is interesting. Peterson was undoubtedly talented and, in terms of raw pace, had the potential to take the WDC (perhaps multiple WDC's), but there was one area in which he could sometimes struggle, which was in setting up a car.
I recently re-read this article about the truth behind Andretti & Peterson...
[url]
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_n ... -peterson/[/url]
Which also confirms that Peterson was by general consent pretty clueless in setting up a car, whereas Mario Andretti was brilliant at it. However I really wanted to share a piece of further insight into the Lotus team in 1978 provided by one post in particular, which I found interesting. For everyone’s ease, I will copy & paste the post I am referring to below;
Ged, 15 April 2009 13:12
Apologies for the longish post:
As an admirer of both Andretti and Peterson, I’m glad to say that I’ve never heard anything that suggests that their mutual respect and friendship was ever spoiled. On the other hand, it’s quite clear that the Chapman-Peterson relationship became frayed beyond repair, hence Ronnie’s decision to sign for McLaren despite Colin wanting him to stay – presumably on somewhat better conditions, as his 1978 performances demanded.
Chapman had, after all, provided Peterson with the two best chassis he ever had; Peterson knew the terms of the contract he had signed for ’78; so why was he so anxious to leave?
Firstly, his season was stymied by a series of maddeningly small problems. I don’t intimate that there was anything sinister about this, simply that Lotus nearly always had difficulties sustaining two reliable cars throughout a season.
Secondly, he was frequently denied access to fresh qualifying tyres, compared with his teammate. This may not have been an unreasonable policy in a team with a clear #1/#2 structure, but it is the kind of behaviour bound to get on the nerves of an ambitious driver for whom time was running out.
Thirdly, and least edifyingly, on at least one occasion, Chapman induced his mechanics to fill up Peterson’s car way beyond what was necessary in qualifying in a failed attempt to keep him behind Andretti on the grid. Peterson went up to him afterwards and said words to the effect of “You can do all you want, I’m still going to be quicker”.
One can only speculate on Chapman’s motivation, but presumably he simply didn’t want to face open scrutiny about keeping back one of his drivers in an age when, compared with today, it would have been considered unsporting as opposed to a logical deployment of resources. Or perhaps he simply didn’t trust his drivers as much as they trusted one another.
So to answer the original question: I don’t imagine Andretti ever sought to have Peterson slowed down. Chapman was quite capable of making such calls himself, if he wished – and sometimes he did.
I too dislike hearsay and unfounded insinuations, so let me say that the above is based on retrospectives published in Swedish newspapers last year, and above all a long documentary on Swedish state radio broadcast on the 30th anniversary of Peterson’s death. One major contributor to the programme was Fredrik af Petersen, more or less a contemporary of Nigel Roebuck’s and widely respected in the trade. I quite accept that Swedish sources are more likely to be sympathetic to Peterson than otherwise, but conversely, they might constitute a valuable supplement to the Anglophone-dominated Formula 1 media..
(Tony Jardine, 1988)
When things get challenging, Button drops off the face of this earth and with few exceptions that always has been the case in his career. The only reason he has that championship is that, in comparison to the other three drivers in the extended title hunt (i.e. the Brawn drivers and the Red Bull ones), it hardly got challenging for him, hardly any mechnical issues, no pitstop mistakes, no nothing.
