Grand Prix Rejects

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 03:37**

Warren Hughes wrote:Benetton used to put a bright red mark on the nose of their lead car. The list just goes on.

These days it's red T cameras for the lead car, yellow for the second. Honestly, I look for that more than I do the driver's helmet design. Either T cam or car number (which Honda used to do). I remember one ITV broadcast where there was a shot of the Honda going away from the camera and the commentators not knowing which one it was even though there was A GREAT BIG #16 THERE. I was thinking to myself: "THATS BUTTON YOU FOOL".

A similar situation happened when I was watching the same year, and in the same kind of instance (Honda going away from camera) and the U.S. commentators correctly identified the driver by number in a millisecond.

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 19:18**

Will the Mercedes drivers' helmet debacle be worse than Burandoru and Buranderu debacle in Japan? Or, will it be better than that?

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 19:19**

What the devil was Ricardo Rosset up to during qualifying for Monaco in 1998? I've never seen such amaturish antics and stupidity since (although Grosjean and Maldonado came close last season.) :lol:

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 19:27**

Klon wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:Thats not new in 2003 -05 Mclaren had the drivers name on the sidepod at certain races and in 2010 the mighty HRT had the same....

In 2003-05? The "Name instead of West" thing is as old as the sponsorship deal with West itself, i.e. was debuted in 1997.

98 i think... in 1997 they used a star in a square thing

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 19:35**

WeirdKerr wrote:
Klon wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:Thats not new in 2003 -05 Mclaren had the drivers name on the sidepod at certain races and in 2010 the mighty HRT had the same....

In 2003-05? The "Name instead of West" thing is as old as the sponsorship deal with West itself, i.e. was debuted in 1997.

98 i think... in 1997 they used a star in a square thing

Yep. Out of curiosity, is that a logo of some company as it was also on the livery in races where tobacco logos were permitted?

Because as a kid I somehow thought that the logo looked similar to this:

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 19:48**

Nuppiz wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:
Klon wrote:In 2003-05? The "Name instead of West" thing is as old as the sponsorship deal with West itself, i.e. was debuted in 1997.

98 i think... in 1997 they used a star in a square thing

Yep. Out of curiosity, is that a logo of some company as it was also on the livery in races where tobacco logos were permitted?

Because as a kid I somehow thought that the logo looked similar to this:

I think I recognise that McLaren logo, but I can't for the life of me work out where from...

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 21:31**

Nuppiz wrote:
WeirdKerr wrote:
Klon wrote:
In 2003-05? The "Name instead of West" thing is as old as the sponsorship deal with West itself, i.e. was debuted in 1997.

98 i think... in 1997 they used a star in a square thing

Yep. Out of curiosity, is that a logo of some company as it was also on the livery in races where tobacco logos were permitted?

There's a starman
Standing in a box
He'd like to go out smoking
But he knows that he cannot

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 21:40**

It was used in 1998 as well. So Klon was wrong! It hasn't been around as long as the West deal at all...the first instance of it I could find was 1999. So there's your answer.

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 21:41**

That is nothing less than the West logo.

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 21:52**

I remember seeing some photos of either the 1996 or 1997 Williams in Rothmans livery, but with question marks where the Rothmans name would be. Which race did they use that noval method of hiding the cigars?

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 23:00**

East Londoner wrote:I remember seeing some photos of either the 1996 or 1997 Williams in Rothmans livery, but with question marks where the Rothmans name would be. Which race did they use that noval method of hiding the cigars?

If your on about which race did they have the question mark, the answer I think was France.

I've just been staring at the first McLaren picture with Hakkinen driving it. Compare the almost simple designs from back then to today's cars. And they're almost unrecognisable.

Posted: **16 Feb 2013, 23:02**

East Londoner wrote:I remember seeing some photos of either the 1996 or 1997 Williams in Rothmans livery, but with question marks where the Rothmans name would be. Which race did they use that noval method of hiding the cigars?

France have (and have had for quite a while) strict legislation against cigarette advertising.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 00:26**

shinji wrote:
East Londoner wrote:I remember seeing some photos of either the 1996 or 1997 Williams in Rothmans livery, but with question marks where the Rothmans name would be. Which race did they use that noval method of hiding the cigars?

France have (and have had for quite a while) strict legislation against cigarette advertising.

For a long time, the only countries in the Grand Prix calendar that didn't allow tobacco sponsorship were Britain, France and Germany. Other countries like Portugal did not allow tobacco advertising but made exceptions for events with international exposure.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 00:40**

shinji wrote:
East Londoner wrote:I remember seeing some photos of either the 1996 or 1997 Williams in Rothmans livery, but with question marks where the Rothmans name would be. Which race did they use that noval method of hiding the cigars?

France have (and have had for quite a while) strict legislation against cigarette advertising.

Which is amazing, because cigarettes are dirt cheap in France...at least, I think they were in Brittany.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 00:47**

Ataxia [BacLettNinj] wrote:Which is amazing, because cigarettes are dirt cheap in France...at least, I think they were in Brittany.

Life lesson #316,824: anyone and anything involving vocal non-smokers on a political level is hypocritical.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 09:25**

On the topic of sponsorship, I see that Whitmarsh has been making some interesting comments about the current state of affairs of the teams, mainly because his claims do not make for easy reading.
Whilst it is known that some outfits have been in difficult positions, he has claimed that "of the 11 teams, seven of them are in survival strategy" and that several teams will struggle to remain solvent over the next few years. Even some of the larger outfits appear to have had a rough time according to the BBC - they claim that Lotus's mechanics were threatening to down their tools as a public protest in Abu Dhabi because their wages were not being paid on time, and that is a team that, finishing 4th in the WCC, should have had a fairly healthy cut of the TV rights revenue. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21463651 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/21469518

Furthermore, although Whitmarsh is still somewhat critical of Bernie's role, he concedes that Bernie's moves to keep as much revenue for CVC is what he is employed for and that it is, ultimately, the fault of the teams for not standing up to him. Even so, whilst it looks like the teams are going to get a larger cut of the TV rights from 2013 onwards - the BBC suggests they'll be getting about 63% of the TV rights revenue now - that rise in revenue is being eroded by the expected sharp jump in engine costs and a sharp increase in the entry fee that the FIA is charging. Caterham are already pushing for a relaxation on the rules of what parts cannot be purchased from other teams as standard "off the shelf" parts to cut costs, so whilst things may still be quite rosy for those at the top, the situation still sounds grim for those further down the field.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 15:37**

Am I right in thinking that the 2013 Australian GP will be the first race that none of the entrants from Imola 1994 will be entered? (In other words, will Australia be the first race since Imola 1994 that neither Schumacher nor Barrichello will be entered?)

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 16:50**

dr-baker wrote:Am I right in thinking that the 2013 Australian GP will be the first race that none of the entrants from Imola 1994 will be entered? (In other words, will Australia be the first race since Imola 1994 that neither Schumacher nor Barrichello will be entered?)

Yes, that's correct. Unless Barrichello gets the Force India seat.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 17:46**

I ran into a very interesting line of though.

"One half of F1 died with Gilles. The other half died with Ayrton"

I don't think that's too far from the truth actually. Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.
After them, almost every driver has been less pure racers and more like Politicians (Mansell, Alonso, J.Villeneuve), Strategists (Prost, Schuey, Button) or PR-figures (Hamilton, Hill, Vettel).
Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

The only one who gets even close to this in my opinion is Kimi, but that's not by choice, but simply because it's the only thing he is good at.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 18:22**

Am I right in thinking that the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix is the earliest GP where all competitors are still alive today?

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 18:45**

DonTirri wrote:I ran into a very interesting line of though.

"One half of F1 died with Gilles. The other half died with Ayrton"

I don't think that's too far from the truth actually. Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.
After them, almost every driver has been less pure racers and more like Politicians (Mansell, Alonso, J.Villeneuve), Strategists (Prost, Schuey, Button) or PR-figures (Hamilton, Hill, Vettel).
Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

The only one who gets even close to this in my opinion is Kimi, but that's not by choice, but simply because it's the only thing he is good at.

What about Webber? Where would he fit in then?

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 18:49**

DonTirri wrote:Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

I think you can say this about most drivers, really.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 19:42**

darkapprentice77 wrote:Am I right in thinking that the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix is the earliest GP where all competitors are still alive today?

What about 1994 Monaco GP, the first race after the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger?

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 19:44**

Meatwad wrote:
darkapprentice77 wrote:Am I right in thinking that the 1995 Brazilian Grand Prix is the earliest GP where all competitors are still alive today?

What about 1994 Monaco GP, the first race after the deaths of Senna and Ratzenberger?

Michele Alboreto was still in the field for 1994.

Posted: **17 Feb 2013, 19:58**

mario wrote:
DonTirri wrote:I ran into a very interesting line of though.

"One half of F1 died with Gilles. The other half died with Ayrton"

I don't think that's too far from the truth actually. Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.
After them, almost every driver has been less pure racers and more like Politicians (Mansell, Alonso, J.Villeneuve), Strategists (Prost, Schuey, Button) or PR-figures (Hamilton, Hill, Vettel).
Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

The only one who gets even close to this in my opinion is Kimi, but that's not by choice, but simply because it's the only thing he is good at.

What about Webber? Where would he fit in then?

IMO Alesi carried the light of GV. He wasn't the cleverest racer ever, but my god did Jean try his hardest every single time he sat in an F1 car & boy did it show.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 01:08**

DonTirri wrote:I ran into a very interesting line of though.

"One half of F1 died with Gilles. The other half died with Ayrton"

I don't think that's too far from the truth actually. Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.
After them, almost every driver has been less pure racers and more like Politicians (Mansell, Alonso, J.Villeneuve), Strategists (Prost, Schuey, Button) or PR-figures (Hamilton, Hill, Vettel).
Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

The only one who gets even close to this in my opinion is Kimi, but that's not by choice, but simply because it's the only thing he is good at.

Montoya? Alesi? Zanardi?

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 09:59**

Cynon wrote:
DonTirri wrote:I ran into a very interesting line of though.

"One half of F1 died with Gilles. The other half died with Ayrton"

I don't think that's too far from the truth actually. Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.
After them, almost every driver has been less pure racers and more like Politicians (Mansell, Alonso, J.Villeneuve), Strategists (Prost, Schuey, Button) or PR-figures (Hamilton, Hill, Vettel).
Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

The only one who gets even close to this in my opinion is Kimi, but that's not by choice, but simply because it's the only thing he is good at.

Montoya? Alesi? Zanardi?

De Cesaris? :lol:

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 10:49**

DonTirri wrote:I ran into a very interesting line of though.

"One half of F1 died with Gilles. The other half died with Ayrton"

I don't think that's too far from the truth actually. Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.
After them, almost every driver has been less pure racers and more like Politicians (Mansell, Alonso, J.Villeneuve), Strategists (Prost, Schuey, Button) or PR-figures (Hamilton, Hill, Vettel).
Sure, atleast in Senna's case he wasn't afraid to throw his weight around in politics or strategize if needed... but deep down he was a pure bred racer.

They were both iconic in life and death but I dont think there have been many drivers in the sport trying NOT to drive fast and be the best at it. It implies the drivers since have somehow prioritised being politicians, strategists and PR figures ahead of being racers. As we all know the sport has changed massively in the 19 years since Senna died and we have simply no idea how he would've behaved until the end of his career had Imola not happened.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 14:54**

OK, so Australia 2013 will be the first GP since 1st May 1994 where nobody from Imola 1994 is being entered. But has there ever been a GP before where nobody entered has also competed in a GP where somebody has died? For example, Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost were entered into the 1982 Belgian Grand Prix, an event at while Villeneuve died, and they subsequantly entered most, if not every, race between them until the end of 1993. Were the first few races in 1994 the only time previously where no drivers knew what it was like to compete in an event in which somebody had died? (I'm thinking F1 only)

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 14:58**

dr-baker wrote:OK, so Australia 2013 will be the first GP since 1st May 1994 where nobody from Imola 1994 is being entered. But has there ever been a GP before where nobody entered has also competed in a GP where somebody has died? For example, Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost were entered into the 1982 Belgian Grand Prix, an event at while Villeneuve died, and they subsequantly entered most, if not every, race between them until the end of 1993. Were the first few races in 1994 the only time previously where no drivers knew what it was like to compete in an event in which somebody had died? (I'm thinking F1 only)

No, because of Michele Alboreto, who was drove in 1982, when Villeneuve and Paletti died.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 15:29**

DonTirri wrote:Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.

a.k.a. "idiots".

Damn right, you people heard me - I just called Senna and (Gilles) Villeneuve idiots and I am sticking with that. A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it. Therefore people who think with their brains instead of their feet will always trump "true racers": it's why Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Juan Manuel Fangio will forever be so much more worthy of GOAT accolades then Senna was. It's why Sebastian Vettel will be at least a four-time world champion and Kimi Räikkönen will "only" be a one-time world champion. Passion is useless unless combined with reason.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 15:52**

pi314159 wrote:
dr-baker wrote:OK, so Australia 2013 will be the first GP since 1st May 1994 where nobody from Imola 1994 is being entered. But has there ever been a GP before where nobody entered has also competed in a GP where somebody has died? For example, Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost were entered into the 1982 Belgian Grand Prix, an event at while Villeneuve died, and they subsequantly entered most, if not every, race between them until the end of 1993. Were the first few races in 1994 the only time previously where no drivers knew what it was like to compete in an event in which somebody had died? (I'm thinking F1 only)

No, because of Michele Alboreto, who was drove in 1982, when Villeneuve and Paletti died.

So the next race will be the first in F1 history where none of the entrants have also previously entered a race in which another driver died? That is quite something...

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 16:04**

dr-baker wrote:
pi314159 wrote:
dr-baker wrote:OK, so Australia 2013 will be the first GP since 1st May 1994 where nobody from Imola 1994 is being entered. But has there ever been a GP before where nobody entered has also competed in a GP where somebody has died? For example, Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost were entered into the 1982 Belgian Grand Prix, an event at while Villeneuve died, and they subsequantly entered most, if not every, race between them until the end of 1993. Were the first few races in 1994 the only time previously where no drivers knew what it was like to compete in an event in which somebody had died? (I'm thinking F1 only)

No, because of Michele Alboreto, who was drove in 1982, when Villeneuve and Paletti died.

So the next race will be the first in F1 history where none of the entrants have also previously entered a race in which another driver died? That is quite something...

I think it is quite a statement for the safety of the sport. I sincerily hope the years keep counting.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 17:06**

DanielPT wrote:
dr-baker wrote:
pi314159 wrote:No, because of Michele Alboreto, who was drove in 1982, when Villeneuve and Paletti died.

So the next race will be the first in F1 history where none of the entrants have also previously entered a race in which another driver died? That is quite something...

I think it is quite a statement for the safety of the sport. I sincerily hope the years keep counting.

If you're only counting championship races, of course, you'll have to say that technically, the last time was the 1954 British Grand Prix, the race before the passing of Onofre Marimon...

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 17:09**

Klon wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.

a.k.a. "idiots".

Damn right, you people heard me - I just called Senna and (Gilles) Villeneuve idiots and I am sticking with that. A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it. Therefore people who think with their brains instead of their feet will always trump "true racers": it's why Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Juan Manuel Fangio will forever be so much more worthy of GOAT accolades then Senna was. It's why Sebastian Vettel will be at least a four-time world champion and Kimi Räikkönen will "only" be a one-time world champion. Passion is useless unless combined with reason.

Which is all a load of toss as we all know the death of Senna was down to bad luck. It could've happened to anybody and could have just as easily not happened to him at all. It had nothing to do with his approach to racing, just circumstance. Sorry if you didnt know that but all the information about Imola 1994 is freely available on the internet.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 17:30**

CoopsII wrote:
Klon wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.

a.k.a. "idiots".

Damn right, you people heard me - I just called Senna and (Gilles) Villeneuve idiots and I am sticking with that. A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it. Therefore people who think with their brains instead of their feet will always trump "true racers": it's why Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Juan Manuel Fangio will forever be so much more worthy of GOAT accolades then Senna was. It's why Sebastian Vettel will be at least a four-time world champion and Kimi Räikkönen will "only" be a one-time world champion. Passion is useless unless combined with reason.

Which is all a load of toss as we all know the death of Senna was down to bad luck. It could've happened to anybody and could have just as easily not happened to him at all. It had nothing to do with his approach to racing, just circumstance. Sorry if you didnt know that but all the information about Imola 1994 is freely available on the internet.

Doesn't change the fact Suzuka 1990 was incredibly reckless. It's stupid that he was allowed to keep his WDC yet Schumacher was DSQd from the entire 1997 season for something much less. Both were cheating but Senna aimed at Prost using full throttle. I think anyone who did that right now would have their Superlicense revoked for being a complete f***ing idiot. Which Senna was at times. An incredibly fast f***ing idiot mind, but an idiot nonetheless.

Schumacher ain't worthy of s**t though, the man is a serial cheater and has no respect for the rules.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 17:35**

Klon wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.

a.k.a. "idiots".

Damn right, you people heard me - I just called Senna and (Gilles) Villeneuve idiots and I am sticking with that. A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it. Therefore people who think with their brains instead of their feet will always trump "true racers": it's why Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Juan Manuel Fangio will forever be so much more worthy of GOAT accolades then Senna was. It's why Sebastian Vettel will be at least a four-time world champion and Kimi Räikkönen will "only" be a one-time world champion. Passion is useless unless combined with reason.

Jenson Button will be pleased, he's managed to convert one of his most ardent critics to a fan! :lol:

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 17:45**

CoopsII wrote:
Klon wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.

a.k.a. "idiots".

Damn right, you people heard me - I just called Senna and (Gilles) Villeneuve idiots and I am sticking with that. A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it. Therefore people who think with their brains instead of their feet will always trump "true racers": it's why Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Juan Manuel Fangio will forever be so much more worthy of GOAT accolades then Senna was. It's why Sebastian Vettel will be at least a four-time world champion and Kimi Räikkönen will "only" be a one-time world champion. Passion is useless unless combined with reason.

Which is all a load of toss as we all know the death of Senna was down to bad luck. It could've happened to anybody and could have just as easily not happened to him at all. It had nothing to do with his approach to racing, just circumstance. Sorry if you didnt know that but all the information about Imola 1994 is freely available on the internet.

The comment on Kimi is also, I feel, somewhat harsh on him given the quality of some of the machinery at his disposal in his earlier years. He came a very close second in 2003 in what many would regard as an inferior car to his rivals (as McLaren themselves admit, the MP4/17D's development potential was fairly limited by the end of the season), not to mention the contentious change in the tyre regulations that hurt the Michelin runners in the latter part of the season. Equally, his title challenge in 2005 was blunted by the fact that the MP4/20, whilst very fast, did suffer from reliability problems.

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 17:54**

mario wrote:
CoopsII wrote:Which is all a load of toss

The comment on Kimi is also.

Well lets face it, Klon only posted that to get a reaction, and the associated attention. And as East Londoner pointed out, he/she contradicted a previous opinion anyway. You need to have a good memory to do this kind of stuff really :lol:

Posted: **18 Feb 2013, 19:49**

Klon wrote:
DonTirri wrote:Gilles and Ayrton were in my opinion the last true *Racers* in the sport, just fast men who wanted to drive fast and be best at it, damn the consequences.

a.k.a. "idiots".

Damn right, you people heard me - I just called Senna and (Gilles) Villeneuve idiots and I am sticking with that. A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it. Therefore people who think with their brains instead of their feet will always trump "true racers": it's why Michael Schumacher, Alain Prost and Juan Manuel Fangio will forever be so much more worthy of GOAT accolades then Senna was. It's why Sebastian Vettel will be at least a four-time world champion and Kimi Räikkönen will "only" be a one-time world champion. Passion is useless unless combined with reason.

Maybe the above post is looking to get a reaction, and the associated attention as CoopsII correctly points out. However I do feel one need to stand up on behalf of ‘racers’ like GV & Senna. Okay I understand there will always be some people who may never fully understand the ‘Gilles Villeneuve thing'. But to call him or Senna “idiots” is going a bit too far don’t you think? May I ask what do you look for in racing drivers? For instance do you want to see a driver driving for results, thereby cruising to a safe 3rd position consistently every week? Or do you want to see a driver risk it all & go for the win?

I suspect the majority of REAL F1 fans are in the latter category, hence the reason why drivers like Senna or Gilles Villeneueve are so revered. Much more than one would expect given their records in comparison to Fangio, Prost & Schumacher. Sure danger and inconsistency in terms of WDC points can be a by product of their attitude. However I believe Both Senna & GV knew and accepted these costs beforehand. Yet still choose to carry on with their ‘flat out’ approach despite its many draw backs. For the simple reason that they wouldn’t have been comfortable trying to race any other way. Nor did they cave in to pressure forcing them to change their approach.

For instance here is Senna talking about how his character had costed him a race or a good result, but the main thing is to be yourself...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWP38I4Mt0o

Simliarly IIRC Gilles Villeneueve once spoke of how "results" were of secondary interest to him - he wanted simply to be the fastest. I'm sure he would have been happy to win a championship, but only on his own terms; only by being the fastest day in day out, and not by driving strategically. Did that compromise his career statistics? Absolutely. Does that mean he was daft, or wrong? I don't think so - it merely reflects that he brought his own values to his racing, and stayed true to those values in a world where few drivers shared it. And fewer still are brave enough to put this attitude into practice.

I believe that has everything to do with why people still revere true racers like Villleneuve & Senna even today nearly 31 years & 19 years since their respective deaths. To illustrate this point, I’m willing to bet there are at least as many books on Villeneueve as there are on either Fangio, Prost or Schumacher. All of whom were vastly more ‘successful’ than Gilles in terms of statistics. Whereas there seems to be at least twice as many books on Senna as any other F1 driver. My point to all this; attitudes towards their motor racing like those GV or Senna held appear to inspire the public much more than their achievements or statistics ever could. Which for me personally is a greater achievement than the 7 WDC's M Schumi won.

Very simply put its not what they did. Its how they did it.

In regards to the “A win is only worth it if you live to enjoy it” bit you said. Perhaps Gilles & Senna disagreed. Instead, maybe they felt that ‘living for’ & ‘enjoying the moment’ was more important than savouring a victory afterwards? Hence the reason why for instance, they would go flat out, where mere mortals would not have the balls to do so. As this gave them as much, if not more of a buzz then say winning certain races? Sure a win had some degree of enjoyment attached to it. However I vividly remember GV describe his Spain 1981 victory as a “grind”. Similarly how much enjoyment would Senna (or anyone) really have taken for those victories when he had a clear car advantage?

Where as if I was to look around, I’m sure I could dig out various quotes them both talking about the pleasure of driving a racing car at its limits & the joy of fighting fairly on track which Senna despite being an idiot at certain times like Suzuka 1990. Senna did occasional fight fairly, like with Alesi at Phonenix in 1990. So maybe for them, it was worth taking the chances & risks they did to experience such pleasurable moments. I mean isn’t that called living your life to the full. I for one always felt that Gilles did more living in his 32 years on this planet then most people do in 100 years.

Finally I shall leave you to ponder a quote from Gilles...

I never think I can hurt myself - not seriously. If you believe it can happen to you, how can you do this job? If you are never over eight-tenths, or whatever, because you're thinking about a shunt, you're not going as quick as you can. And if you're doing that, you're not a racing driver. Some guys in Formula 1... well, to me they're not racing drivers. They drive racing cars, that's all. They're doing a half job. And in that case I wonder why they do it at all.

p.s I would also like to add Stefan Bellof to the name of ‘racers’ as well. Anyone who has the balls to drive as quick as he did around the Nurburgring in his Porsche 956 & try some of the overtaking moves he did, is a true ‘racer’ in my book.

Grand Prix Rejects

Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox

Re: Ponderbox