Grand Prix Rejects

I seem to remember Stoddart saying that if Jordan had pulled into the pits at the end of the formation lap (as they had supposedly agreed to do), Minardi wouldn't have raced either.

My favourite movie credit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fly_II#Cast

fjackdaw wrote:My favourite movie credit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fly_II#Cast

"Martin Brundle, the son of Seth Brundle and Veronica Quaife,..."

The Brundles related somehow to Adrian Quaife-Hobbs?

Its literally only occurred to me now, but... What with the current political climate over in Korea, is there any chance of the grand prix being called off, or is it too far into the future for any decision to be made?

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Its literally only occurred to me now, but... What with the current political climate over in Korea, is there any chance of the grand prix being called off, or is it too far into the future for any decision to be made?

I may explain more tomorrow on why the gp stands a damn good chance of going ahead

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Its literally only occurred to me now, but... What with the current political climate over in Korea, is there any chance of the grand prix being called off, or is it too far into the future for any decision to be made?

I would say it's unlikely to be called off, unless, between now and then, the situation escalates to a point where there is actual consequences, and I doubt the North would be stupid enough to let that happen, given that even their closest ally, China, is distancing itself.

FloProAct wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Its literally only occurred to me now, but... What with the current political climate over in Korea, is there any chance of the grand prix being called off, or is it too far into the future for any decision to be made?

I would say it's unlikely to be called off, unless, between now and then, the situation escalates to a point where there is actual consequences, and I doubt the North would be stupid enough to let that happen, given that even their closest ally, China, is distancing itself.

I would agree that, although the situation may be tense, it is unlikely that either side wishes to push the other into a full blown conflict - especially the North Koreans, since it is hard to see what benefits it would bring them at all.

If the race is to be called off in the near future, it is far more likely that it would be down to the organisers going bankrupt and defaulting on their contract. That is something that I can actually see happening fairly soon, since the organisers are yet to turn a profit on the race itself and are struggling to attract other racing series to offset the cost of the GP, whilst the proposed secondary developments are yet to materialise too.

mario wrote:

FloProAct wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Its literally only occurred to me now, but... What with the current political climate over in Korea, is there any chance of the grand prix being called off, or is it too far into the future for any decision to be made?

I would say it's unlikely to be called off, unless, between now and then, the situation escalates to a point where there is actual consequences, and I doubt the North would be stupid enough to let that happen, given that even their closest ally, China, is distancing itself.

I would agree that, although the situation may be tense, it is unlikely that either side wishes to push the other into a full blown conflict - especially the North Koreans, since it is hard to see what benefits it would bring them at all.

If the race is to be called off in the near future, it is far more likely that it would be down to the organisers going bankrupt and defaulting on their contract. That is something that I can actually see happening fairly soon, since the organisers are yet to turn a profit on the race itself and are struggling to attract other racing series to offset the cost of the GP, whilst the proposed secondary developments are yet to materialise too.

More immediately, this is unlikely to affect the Chinese Grand Prix, is it? After all, last year, F1 went to Bahrain...

dr-baker wrote:More immediately, this is unlikely to affect the Chinese Grand Prix, is it? After all, last year, F1 went to Bahrain...

Indeed I think it is. We have that for Bernie, unless nukes are involved, he will absolutely insist in doing the GP if the host are still interested.

DanielPT wrote:

dr-baker wrote:More immediately, this is unlikely to affect the Chinese Grand Prix, is it? After all, last year, F1 went to Bahrain...

Indeed it think it is. We have that for Bernie, unless nukes are involved, he will absolutely insist in doing the GP if the host are still interested.

And even then, we're sure Bernie is immortal so even a nuclear war won't get in the way between him and his next $20 million race fee

Wizzie wrote:

DanielPT wrote:

dr-baker wrote:More immediately, this is unlikely to affect the Chinese Grand Prix, is it? After all, last year, F1 went to Bahrain...

Indeed it think it is. We have that for Bernie, unless nukes are involved, he will absolutely insist in doing the GP if the host are still interested.

And even then, we're sure Bernie is immortal so even a nuclear war won't get in the way between him and his next $20 million race fee

So I take it that the UN will appoint him to lead the peace negotiations?

F1, is there anything it can't solve?

Bernie's fortune is equivalent to a shade over 10% of North Korea's GDP. Him and some of his Sheikh buddies could just outright buy the entire country and then turn F1 into a dictatorship, by stating all races must be held there.

Stramala wrote:Bernie's fortune is equivalent to a shade over 10% of North Korea's GDP. Him and some of his Sheikh buddies could just outright buy the entire country and then turn F1 into a dictatorship, by stating all races must be held there.

Bernie knows the business of hosting an F1 race is a losing one so he would never do that (he tried with Turkey for as long as the government cough up the cash). It is preferable to continue to milk rich bored countries.

The thing with north Korea is that all of there tanks and other weapons are stuff that they U.S.S.R didn't want because it was so old so it therefore stands to reason that if Obama wanted to, he could wipe North Korea off the map in about 72 hours such is America's millitary might

roblomas52 wrote:The thing with north Korea is that all of there tanks and other weapons are stuff that they U.S.S.R didn't want because it was so old so it therefore stands to reason that if Obama wanted to, he could wipe North Korea off the map in about 72 hours such is America's millitary might

Which is why I've ignored all of their threats. They're just showing off to make the government more popular among their own people and, more importantly, to extort more humanitarian aid - they know the country would fall apart in weeks if it was cut off, even though they don't want to admit receiving any aid at all.

Nuppiz wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:The thing with north Korea is that all of there tanks and other weapons are stuff that they U.S.S.R didn't want because it was so old so it therefore stands to reason that if Obama wanted to, he could wipe North Korea off the map in about 72 hours such is America's millitary might

Which is why I've ignored all of their threats. They're just showing off to make the government more popular among their own people and, more importantly, to extort more humanitarian aid - they know the country would fall apart in weeks if it was cut off, even though they don't want to admit receiving any aid at all.

Me and my dad think there's some sort of power struggle behind the scenes, and this is Kim Jong Un's attempt to get the old generals on his side. Absolutely nothing to worry about whatsoever.

roblomas52 wrote:The thing with north Korea is that all of there tanks and other weapons are stuff that they U.S.S.R didn't want because it was so old so it therefore stands to reason that if Obama wanted to, he could wipe North Korea off the map in about 72 hours such is America's millitary might

It would be a lot harder than that, I think. There is no way for North Korea to win any conflict that breaks out, but they've had 60 years to fortify the country.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:The thing with north Korea is that all of there tanks and other weapons are stuff that they U.S.S.R didn't want because it was so old so it therefore stands to reason that if Obama wanted to, he could wipe North Korea off the map in about 72 hours such is America's millitary might

It would be a lot harder than that, I think. There is no way for North Korea to win any conflict that breaks out, but they've had 60 years to fortify the country.

That is close to irrelevant in these day and age if you don't have the right tech (and I believe they don't). It is like building a massive castle in a city in order to prevent a tank invasion...

Here's a ponder that got me thinking- in 15 or 20 years, how many of the current line up of drivers will be remembered as all-time greats? What got me thinking about this was James Allen's book about Schumi, written in mid 2007, and in it, he basically puts Alonso on a pedestal, saying he's the most likely to take over Schumi's mantle. Anyway, when the book was written, that would have been a fair assumption to make (after all, Alonso had won back to back titles at an improbably young age and was with a team that could give him title no. 3) but he hasn't won the title since his Renault days, although thrice he's missed out by the skin of his teeth. Anyway, considering his failure over the past 7 years to bag another title, will he miss out on being mentioned in the same breath as Fangio, Clark, Senna, Prost et al, or what?

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Here's a ponder that got me thinking- in 15 or 20 years, how many of the current line up of drivers will be remembered as all-time greats? What got me thinking about this was James Allen's book about Schumi, written in mid 2007, and in it, he basically puts Alonso on a pedestal, saying he's the most likely to take over Schumi's mantle. Anyway, when the book was written, that would have been a fair assumption to make (after all, Alonso had won back to back titles at an improbably young age and was with a team that could give him title no. 3) but he hasn't won the title since his Renault days, although thrice he's missed out by the skin of his teeth. Anyway, considering his failure over the past 7 years to bag another title, will he miss out on being mentioned in the same breath as Fangio, Clark, Senna, Prost et al, or what?

I think that's certainly very possible, especially given how Vettel and Red Bull seem nigh unbeatable at the moment. Niki Lauda is arguably in that position - had he not had his accident in 1976, he could've won 3 titles on the bounce, and his later career could've panned out very differently, winning even more titles. I think Lauda is badly underrated by a lot of people, personally - in my book, he has every right to be mentioned along with Prost, Clark, Fangio, Schumacher, and Senna.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Here's a ponder that got me thinking- in 15 or 20 years, how many of the current line up of drivers will be remembered as all-time greats? What got me thinking about this was James Allen's book about Schumi, written in mid 2007, and in it, he basically puts Alonso on a pedestal, saying he's the most likely to take over Schumi's mantle. Anyway, when the book was written, that would have been a fair assumption to make (after all, Alonso had won back to back titles at an improbably young age and was with a team that could give him title no. 3) but he hasn't won the title since his Renault days, although thrice he's missed out by the skin of his teeth. Anyway, considering his failure over the past 7 years to bag another title, will he miss out on being mentioned in the same breath as Fangio, Clark, Senna, Prost et al, or what?

I think that's certainly very possible, especially given how Vettel and Red Bull seem nigh unbeatable at the moment. Niki Lauda is arguably in that position - had he not had his accident in 1976, he could've won 3 titles on the bounce, and his later career could've panned out very differently, winning even more titles. I think Lauda is badly underrated by a lot of people, personally - in my book, he has every right to be mentioned along with Prost, Clark, Fangio, Schumacher, and Senna.

What about Emerson Fittipaldi, who won two championships (and could have won four in total) in six years before going to his brother's team?

I was just pondering what the hell Christian Horner was doing popping up during the latest trailer for Man of Steel at 0.18...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... PlzxQMWb4#!

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Here's a ponder that got me thinking- in 15 or 20 years, how many of the current line up of drivers will be remembered as all-time greats? What got me thinking about this was James Allen's book about Schumi, written in mid 2007, and in it, he basically puts Alonso on a pedestal, saying he's the most likely to take over Schumi's mantle. Anyway, when the book was written, that would have been a fair assumption to make (after all, Alonso had won back to back titles at an improbably young age and was with a team that could give him title no. 3) but he hasn't won the title since his Renault days, although thrice he's missed out by the skin of his teeth. Anyway, considering his failure over the past 7 years to bag another title, will he miss out on being mentioned in the same breath as Fangio, Clark, Senna, Prost et al, or what?

I think that's certainly very possible, especially given how Vettel and Red Bull seem nigh unbeatable at the moment. Niki Lauda is arguably in that position - had he not had his accident in 1976, he could've won 3 titles on the bounce, and his later career could've panned out very differently, winning even more titles. I think Lauda is badly underrated by a lot of people, personally - in my book, he has every right to be mentioned along with Prost, Clark, Fangio, Schumacher, and Senna.

Lauda is kind of an interesting figure - that accident in 1976, as you say, cost him the chance of winning three titles back to back and probably did change his later career in terms of the way that he approached the sport afterwards. However, at the same time the accident has perhaps lead to him being remembered for a different reason, which was his courage and force of will to return to a sport that had nearly killed him - maybe it has lead to his driving capabilities being underrated, but on the other hand his personal attributes have brought a different sort of admiration.

As to Alonso and his level of success, well, I think that could perhaps cut two ways. Whilst it may be the case that he might not have won a title since 2006, on the other hand the paddock has consistently hailed him as the best driver in the field precisely because he has consistently come close to taking the title despite regularly having an inferior car to his rivals. Pure success alone isn't always the deciding factor in how a driver is remembered - Nelson Piquet Sr may have won three titles but few would say that he was a great driver, whilst many hail Moss as a great driver despite the fact that he never won a title at all.

If the context is considered as well, then sometimes a driver can be more highly rated than his results might suggest, such that I expect that Alonso probably will still be quite highly regarded in the future, even if perhaps not quite in the same context as those aforementioned drivers.

mario wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

takagi_for_the_win wrote:Here's a ponder that got me thinking- in 15 or 20 years, how many of the current line up of drivers will be remembered as all-time greats? What got me thinking about this was James Allen's book about Schumi, written in mid 2007, and in it, he basically puts Alonso on a pedestal, saying he's the most likely to take over Schumi's mantle. Anyway, when the book was written, that would have been a fair assumption to make (after all, Alonso had won back to back titles at an improbably young age and was with a team that could give him title no. 3) but he hasn't won the title since his Renault days, although thrice he's missed out by the skin of his teeth. Anyway, considering his failure over the past 7 years to bag another title, will he miss out on being mentioned in the same breath as Fangio, Clark, Senna, Prost et al, or what?

I think that's certainly very possible, especially given how Vettel and Red Bull seem nigh unbeatable at the moment. Niki Lauda is arguably in that position - had he not had his accident in 1976, he could've won 3 titles on the bounce, and his later career could've panned out very differently, winning even more titles. I think Lauda is badly underrated by a lot of people, personally - in my book, he has every right to be mentioned along with Prost, Clark, Fangio, Schumacher, and Senna.

Lauda is kind of an interesting figure - that accident in 1976, as you say, cost him the chance of winning three titles back to back and probably did change his later career in terms of the way that he approached the sport afterwards. However, at the same time the accident has perhaps lead to him being remembered for a different reason, which was his courage and force of will to return to a sport that had nearly killed him - maybe it has lead to his driving capabilities being underrated, but on the other hand his personal attributes have brought a different sort of admiration.

As to Alonso and his level of success, well, I think that could perhaps cut two ways. Whilst it may be the case that he might not have won a title since 2006, on the other hand the paddock has consistently hailed him as the best driver in the field precisely because he has consistently come close to taking the title despite regularly having an inferior car to his rivals. Pure success alone isn't always the deciding factor in how a driver is remembered - Nelson Piquet Sr may have won three titles but few would say that he was a great driver, whilst many hail Moss as a great driver despite the fact that he never won a title at all.

If the context is considered as well, then sometimes a driver can be more highly rated than his results might suggest, such that I expect that Alonso probably will still be quite highly regarded in the future, even if perhaps not quite in the same context as those aforementioned drivers.

About Alonso, I agree with your point, but perhaps his star, relative to other drivers in the field has waned slightly. I mean, at the beginning of 2007, he was the only active champion, was walking into a team on the up, had seen off the most successful driver of all time and was the youngest double champion at the time. From what I can remember, everyone was saying that '07 would be the beginning of the Alonso era. Whilst undoubtedly, he is one of the two best drivers in F1 now, and he could well have 5 titles now if fate had played out differently ('07, '10 and '12), he only has 2, and Vettel and Hamilton (and possibly Raikkonen, RoGro and Button) have stolen some of his thunder.

Also, I agree fully about Lauda, given that he could've, possibly should've, won 3 titles in a row. However, for what ever reason, he is remembered as a cold, calculating driver, and not mentioned in the same breath as the drivers I mentioned in my first post.

takagi_for_the_win wrote:... (and possibly Raikkonen, RoGro and Button) have stolen some of his thunder.

What? The first lap nutcase? He still has much to prove methinks. The only thunder he stole was the one which Maldonado had!

Also, about Lauda, the underrating is plain to see if we take example in that disgraceful top 20 GOAT that BBC promoted a few months ago...

Perhaps another reason why Lauda’s driving capabilities might be slightly underrated in comparison to the usual greats like Prost, Clark, Fangio, Senna, Schumacher etc. Is because, how well known are Lauda’s greatest F1 drives by most fans?

I’m guessing not as well known as those other great drivers mentioned. So unless one looks a liitle deeper into Niki’s career the net result means those truly outstanding drives from Lauda tend to go unappreciated. I mean to name a few of Niki’s great drives;


Nurburgring 1975;

He also became the first and only driver to lap the Nürburgring Nordschleife in under 7 minutes, which was considered a huge feat as the Nordschleife section of the Nürburgring was 2 miles longer than it is today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niki_Lauda


Monza 1976;

Six weeks later I was at Monza, where Lauda made his astonishing comeback, finishing fourth, and keeping alive his World Championship hopes, despite having missed the races at the Österreichring and Zandvoort.
All I can tell you is that I was in the Ferrari pit after the race, and I looked on as Niki gingerly peeled off his balaclava, which was stuck – by dried blood – to the still raw burns on his face. That he drove an F1 car at Monza that weekend remains the bravest thing I have ever seen in motor racing – in any sport, come to that. Don’t let anyone tell me that maybe Lauda’s injuries ‘weren’t as severe as people thought’…

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/ask_n ... the-truth/

(most people forget that Lauda broke ribs in tractor accident, which meant he drove in pain in the 1976 Spanish GP).


Or perhaps even Long Beach 1982:

After a successful test with McLaren, the only problem was in convincing then team sponsor Marlboro that he was still capable of winning. Lauda proved he was still quite capable when, in his third race back, he won the Long Beach Grand Prix.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niki_Lauda

In Saturday's qualifying, the cars running on Michelin tires had a decided advantage over the Goodyear teams, though the Michelin men had all learned from Lauda's times on Friday that their harder race tires were faster than the qualifiers. Seeing this development, Lauda intentionally used only one set and kept a brand new set for Sunday's race.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Unite ... _Prix_West


Perhaps the other great drivers have more obvious great races, which the public can appreciate more easily? (i.e. Fangio at Nurburgring in 1957 or Senna at Donnington in 1993 etc).

Also might Lauda’s legacy in F1 be slightly tarnished because he decided not to race beyond (IIRC) lap 2 during the 1976 Japanese GP due of the conditions. Which effectively cost him that year’s title. Although IMO I found Niki’s decision completely understandable given his horrific 1976 accident & injuries. However I wouldn’t be surprised if some people still hold it against Niki. Especially since most people criticized Prost for doing a similar thing in choosing not to race beyond lap 2 in Australia 1989. A decision which made me actually respect Prost even more, since he was the only driver that day that stuck to his initial word of not wanting to race. Whereas IIRC all the other drivers that day gave into the pressure enforced upon them by their teams & Bernie.

Simliarly might Niki F1 legacy be slightly hurt because he left the Brabham team on the Friday during the 1979 Canadian Grand Prix? Or the way he was comprehensively outperformed by his teammate Prost during his final year in 1985?
Finally I think Niki is a bit like Prost in that his driving style tend to be under appreciated by the public at large, because it is not visually exciting at all times. Instead he has a more ‘clinical’ approach; meticulously, painstakingly perfecting their race set-up so that on Sunday, the car is positioned to do the work for them (like at Long Beach 1982). Therefore the public often fails to appreciate that a car does not end up so perfect on race day by accident.

So all of these factors might possibly explain why Lauda’s driving skill tends not to get appreciated as much as other greats, generally speaking.

mario wrote:Whilst it may be the case that he might not have won a title since 2006, on the other hand the paddock has consistently hailed him as the best driver in the field precisely because he has consistently come close to taking the title despite regularly having an inferior car to his rivals.

IIRC JYS said a couple of years ago that the current generation of F1 drivers is the best it has been since the 1960’s. So Alonso being considered the best driver within the current F1 field is no small achievement at all. Which hopefully will be appreciated in the future years (however I fear not by everyone).

takagi_for_the_win wrote:About Alonso, I agree with your point, but perhaps his star, relative to other drivers in the field has waned slightly. I mean, at the beginning of 2007, he was the only active champion, was walking into a team on the up, had seen off the most successful driver of all time and was the youngest double champion at the time. From what I can remember, everyone was saying that '07 would be the beginning of the Alonso era. Whilst undoubtedly, he is one of the two best drivers in F1 now, and he could well have 5 titles now if fate had played out differently ('07, '10 and '12), he only has 2, and Vettel and Hamilton (and possibly Raikkonen, RoGro and Button) have stolen some of his thunder.

Also, I agree fully about Lauda, given that he could've, possibly should've, won 3 titles in a row. However, for what ever reason, he is remembered as a cold, calculating driver, and not mentioned in the same breath as the drivers I mentioned in my first post.

It is true that there have been a few other drivers that have somewhat stolen the limelight since 2007, but he is still one of the major players in the field right now.
Mind you, I guess that one other aspect that has kind of brought him down is the fact that, since 2007, he has also been associated with some of the more controversial events in recent F1 history (Piquet Jr's race fixing, for example, which, whilst he was judged to have been unaware of at the time, he ended up benefiting from). The controversies are always brought up with Schumacher despite his achievements, and again with Alonso, whereas, at least until recently, most of his rivals have not attracted the same level of controversy. Some other drivers may be considered greats even though they have been dogged by controversy themselves, but it has somewhat tarnished their long term reputation.

Schumacher is not as good as we thought because Jos Verstapen said in 1994 that Schumacher probably had electronic aids that were banned that year IIRC

also my Dad has never liked Schumacher since what he did to Hill in the Australian GP 1994

roblomas52 wrote:Schumacher is not as good as we thought because Jos Verstapen said in 1994 that Schumacher probably had electronic aids that were banned that year IIRC

also my Dad has never liked Schumacher since what he did to Hill in the Australian GP 1994

Jos did claim that he had driven Schumacher's car once and thought that the way that the car was handling was so skittish that the only way that it could be driven was with electronic aids. However, when asked, he did then go on in that interview to admit that he found no actual evidence of electronic aids being on the car at the time, so I wouldn't take his claim as definitive proof.

mario wrote:Mind you, I guess that one other aspect that has kind of brought him down is the fact that, since 2007, he has also been associated with some of the more controversial events in recent F1 history (Piquet Jr's race fixing, for example, which, whilst he was judged to have been unaware of at the time, he ended up benefiting from). The controversies are always brought up with Schumacher despite his achievements, and again with Alonso, whereas, at least until recently, most of his rivals have not attracted the same level of controversy. Some other drivers may be considered greats even though they have been dogged by controversy themselves, but it has somewhat tarnished their long term reputation.

Good point as always Mario. Just to add to this, since his experience from 2007. Alonso appears to have a reputation (rightly or wrongly?) of being unwilling to accept a really competitive driver as his teammate. A bit like M Schumi in his Ferrari days. I know Massa has really up his own game recently (outqualifying Alonso for the last 5 races IIRC?) but I think few people would argue that Massa is one of the top 5 drivers currently in F1. Given Felipe’s inconsistently to produce these topline performances throughout the course of a season (at least since 2008).

So unless Alonso does accepts a really competitive driver as his teammate, once again. Then in future people may use that, to argue against Alonso's legendary status. Saying stuff like, well Alonso only ever had poorer teammates & the one time he had an equal teammate, i.e. a rookie Hamilton in 2007, he acted like a spoilt brat.

I remember reading something on Autosport last summer about the Ferrari engineers consider Alonso to be of legendary status. Because of Alonso’s apparent team leadership in pushing Ferrari through its various difficulties over the last few years. For instance, remember how after Sliverstone 2010 Alonso was still convinced he would challenge for that years WDC when frankly most people thought he was crazy because by that point he was so many points off the lead (47 IIRC). And RBR had such a strong car by then. Yet somehow he pushed RBR all the way. Again it was the same story last year. I’m not sure that many drivers in the history of F1 would have the strength of character to push Ferrari along the way Alonso has in 2010 & 2012. Especially when the situation looked as bleak as it did during certain times for Alonso in those years.

So I think the Alonso we are seeing today at Ferrari is superior to the Alonso which was associated with those controversial events from 2007 etc. I just hope in the near future Alonso does accept, fight fairly & compete with someone like Vettel within Ferrari. Then this for me would confirm Alonso's lengendary status, more so than that 3rd WDC.

mario wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:Schumacher is not as good as we thought because Jos Verstapen said in 1994 that Schumacher probably had electronic aids that were banned that year IIRC

also my Dad has never liked Schumacher since what he did to Hill in the Australian GP 1994

Jos did claim that he had driven Schumacher's car once and thought that the way that the car was handling was so skittish that the only way that it could be driven was with electronic aids. However, when asked, he did then go on in that interview to admit that he found no actual evidence of electronic aids being on the car at the time, so I wouldn't take his claim as definitive proof.

I remember that JJ Lehto also made some remarks about Schumacher having twice as many buttons as him that year...obviously there's no actual evidence nor definite proof, but I think, as it's so 'widely rumoured' in F1 circles (didn't someone private find proof of some illegal device in a Benetton B194 he bought lately, as well?), that the car wasn't legal that season.

however, saying that it would make him a worse driver is.....emm......I don't think Schumi's fame was based solely on his '94 season was it, actually not much at all?

Jocke1 wrote:

AAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH

WWWWWWUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

giraurd wrote:

mario wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:Schumacher is not as good as we thought because Jos Verstapen said in 1994 that Schumacher probably had electronic aids that were banned that year IIRC

also my Dad has never liked Schumacher since what he did to Hill in the Australian GP 1994

Jos did claim that he had driven Schumacher's car once and thought that the way that the car was handling was so skittish that the only way that it could be driven was with electronic aids. However, when asked, he did then go on in that interview to admit that he found no actual evidence of electronic aids being on the car at the time, so I wouldn't take his claim as definitive proof.

I remember that JJ Lehto also made some remarks about Schumacher having twice as many buttons as him that year...obviously there's no actual evidence nor definite proof, but I think, as it's so 'widely rumoured' in F1 circles (didn't someone private find proof of some illegal device in a Benetton B194 he bought lately, as well?), that the car wasn't legal that season.

however, saying that it would make him a worse driver is.....emm......I don't think Schumi's fame was based solely on his '94 season was it, actually not much at all?

No, Schumi's fame was not just based on 1994. It was also Jerez '97, the Rascasse-gate, Austria-gate, USA-attempted-race-fix-gate, Run-Rubens into-the-Hungarian-pit-wall-gate,...

giraurd wrote:

mario wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:Schumacher is not as good as we thought because Jos Verstapen said in 1994 that Schumacher probably had electronic aids that were banned that year IIRC

also my Dad has never liked Schumacher since what he did to Hill in the Australian GP 1994

Jos did claim that he had driven Schumacher's car once and thought that the way that the car was handling was so skittish that the only way that it could be driven was with electronic aids. However, when asked, he did then go on in that interview to admit that he found no actual evidence of electronic aids being on the car at the time, so I wouldn't take his claim as definitive proof.

I remember that JJ Lehto also made some remarks about Schumacher having twice as many buttons as him that year...obviously there's no actual evidence nor definite proof, but I think, as it's so 'widely rumoured' in F1 circles (didn't someone private find proof of some illegal device in a Benetton B194 he bought lately, as well?), that the car wasn't legal that season.

however, saying that it would make him a worse driver is.....emm......I don't think Schumi's fame was based solely on his '94 season was it, actually not much at all?

Schumi's fame - or dislike - did not stem from 1994, in fact I suspect that in an alternate universe where Schumacher's career ended after 1994 that the general opinion of him is much higher. After all, upon the start of the 1995 season - or until the conclusion of the 1997 season, Schumacher had only one incident to his name to attract bad press and a bad reputation, the collision with Hill at Adelaide. And even that is forgivable to some; there is no way of knowing for sure if Michael intended to drive into Hill, for instance, if that was me in the car, I'd be panicking about throwing away the title and letting Hill past and be determined to get back on the track in the lead. Also, his car was damaged, which may have had some effect on his driving, or the famous red mist may have descended over him.

Anyway, back to the topic of illegal Benetton driver aids in 1994, I say fair play to Benetton and Schumacher. Schumacher was simply using the tools available to him, if illegal elements were part of the car he's not exactly going to go to the FIA and report them if they're helping him to win, are they? If there was illegal devices on that car, then my respect for Schumacher and Benetton would go up for managing to keep it undercover for the whole season, and even to this day no one knows for sure.

Besides, in the cases of unfair play mentioned and other Schumacher cheating incidents, would we rather they happened, or would we rather Schumacher played fair and drove sportingly? If no one broke the rules once in a while there'd be no controversy, no what ifs, no talking points for us F1 fans to discuss.

What's up with eytl's latest avatar? Neither Stefan Johansson nor Footwork are F1 Rejects. Is he planning an article about the hapless Porsche 3512 engine?

Phoenix wrote:What's up with eytl's latest avatar? Neither Stefan Johansson nor Footwork are F1 Rejects. Is he planning an article about the hapless Porsche 3512 engine?

Yes, that's actually mentioned on the main page

giraurd wrote:

mario wrote:

roblomas52 wrote:Schumacher is not as good as we thought because Jos Verstapen said in 1994 that Schumacher probably had electronic aids that were banned that year IIRC

also my Dad has never liked Schumacher since what he did to Hill in the Australian GP 1994

Jos did claim that he had driven Schumacher's car once and thought that the way that the car was handling was so skittish that the only way that it could be driven was with electronic aids. However, when asked, he did then go on in that interview to admit that he found no actual evidence of electronic aids being on the car at the time, so I wouldn't take his claim as definitive proof.

I remember that JJ Lehto also made some remarks about Schumacher having twice as many buttons as him that year...obviously there's no actual evidence nor definite proof, but I think, as it's so 'widely rumoured' in F1 circles (didn't someone private find proof of some illegal device in a Benetton B194 he bought lately, as well?), that the car wasn't legal that season.

however, saying that it would make him a worse driver is.....emm......I don't think Schumi's fame was based solely on his '94 season was it, actually not much at all?

There was supposedly a private seller of a restored B194 that mentioned that the car had been fitted with a traction control system - however, the seller explicitly noted in the sales documents that the car had been fitted with a modern ECU and modernised electronic equipment since the original electronics were no longer manufactured and impossible to track down.
In that instance, therefore, as the car is not in original condition it is impossible to tell whether the car was originally equipped with traction control, as any such evidence would have been obliterated. The only B194 that I do recall seeing with a traction control system that was sort of original was a post season modified B194 that was used as a demonstration car by Benetton - the thing is, that was chassis no 5., which is listed as Jos's former chassis.

Mind you, as others have pointed out, it is somewhat forgotten that quite a few cars that season were of dubious legality too - McLaren were forced to change their gearbox after running with an illegal gear pre-selection mechanism, Ferrari were subject to an enquiry into questions over traction control too and even Williams themselves were running close to the limit of the regulations (wing shaped housings for the rear driveshaft).

pasta_maldonado wrote:Schumi's fame - or dislike - did not stem from 1994, in fact I suspect that in an alternate universe where Schumacher's career ended after 1994 that the general opinion of him is much higher. After all, upon the start of the 1995 season - or until the conclusion of the 1997 season, Schumacher had only one incident to his name to attract bad press and a bad reputation, the collision with Hill at Adelaide. And even that is forgivable to some; there is no way of knowing for sure if Michael intended to drive into Hill, for instance, if that was me in the car, I'd be panicking about throwing away the title and letting Hill past and be determined to get back on the track in the lead. Also, his car was damaged, which may have had some effect on his driving, or the famous red mist may have descended over him.

Not quite true! And I remember this as a Hill fanboy - Schumacher overtook Hill on the parade lap at the British GP in 1994, for which he was initially awarded a 10-second stop-go, and then a DSQ when he failed to take the penalty... That was a controversial season, and Scumacher was not an angel through that season.

dr-baker wrote: Scumacher was not an angel through that season.

Enjoy this controversial moment from earlier on in Schumachers career...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuvL8dDQxnc

If you watch til the end you'll see that Hakkinen has always thrown his gloves to the floor in anger in exactly the same way.