Grand Prix Rejects

CoopsII wrote:

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

Yeah, gotta love Schumi, eh? I'm starting to love Vettel as much as I love Schumi...

being one that always hated schumacher for his antics, I can't see anything especially wrong in that.
The image is not clear, but I got the impression that Mika simply got too close and hit Schumacher from behind.
..Unless Schumacher lifted or something

lgaquino wrote:..Unless Schumacher lifted or something

Mika accused him of exactly that.

lgaquino wrote:being one that always hated schumacher for his antics, I can't see anything especially wrong in that.
The image is not clear, but I got the impression that Mika simply got too close and hit Schumacher from behind.
..Unless Schumacher lifted or something

It's the same situation as what happened with Barrichello in Hungary 2010, but he threw the block a tad earlier and stuck with it. It's yet another case where Schumacher did not concede when he was beaten.

dr-baker wrote:

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.

Whislt I agree with you dr-baker that Adelaide 1994 wasn’t the only incident that attracted a bad reputation for M Schumi prior to Jerez 1997. In addition to Macau 1990 kindly supplied by CoopsII. Off the top of my head I can recall Brundle saying M Schumi almost ran him off the road in IIRC Hungary 1992…when they were teammates no less!. Then there was M Schumi’s several ‘dirty’ moves at Spa 1995, which included running Hill off the road at Les Combes when they were side by side & making more than one move to defend the lead from Hill at the Bus Stop chicane (like M Schumi did at Monza 2011).

However i'm not sure Sliverstone 1994 is the best example to argue your point dr-baker. Steve Matchett (a Benetton Mechanic in 1994) states that the Sliverstone 1994 stop & go penalty was also unjustified here's why... It was given as a result of M Schumi overtaking poleman Hill on the formation lap. However on the Formation lap in Brazil 1994 M Schumi overtook Senna in an identical way, yet received no penalty or even any warning to my knowledge not to do it again? (& I've seen numerous examples since Sliverstone 1994 of cars passing on the formation lap) One can only conclude that the M Schumi's points lead coming into Sliverstone 1994 influenced the initial penalty.

Furthermore, If you read my posts dated 10 Jan 2012, 00:13 & 01 Mar 2012, 09:13 within this thread…

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4612&hilit=b194&start=40

…where we previously discussed not only Sliverstone 1994, but also all those other Benetton / M Schumi ‘cheating’ accusations, like the fuel filter or the TC / Launch control in some detail. Then you will see there was actually quite a bit of behind the scenes politics throughout 1994 season between the FIA & Benetton. Which in my view influenced not only the Sliverstone 1994 DSQ but also the Spa 1994 DSQ & the fuel rig thing. IIRC Basically Flavio & Benetton fell out with Max Mosley & the FIA around the 1994 Spainish GP, where the FIA introduced a raft of safety changes at extremely short notice. And IIRC Flavio sent an ‘open’ letter critizing Max Mosley & the FIA for doing so, without consulting the teams beforehand.

However I accept that that wasn’t a very clever thing for Flavio to do. Nor was it a particularly clever thing for M Schumi to overtake Hill on the formation lap at Sliverstone 1994 given the aforementioned political fallout. However I do take issue with how there was apparently no punishment or warning for that action in Brazil. Yet a few months later when M Schumi was turning the WDC into a borefest, the FIA then decide to penalise him heavily for the very same action. Which conveniently added much need ‘spice’ back into that year’s WDC fight? That doesn’t sound like a ‘proper’ sport to me. IMO it was the same story with the Spa 1994 DSQ & the fuel filter thing.

In fact had the stewards been aware of the correct procedure at Sliverstone 1994 they would have sent him to the back of the grid before the start. Also Steve Matchett claims that the Benetton team were wrongly advised by the stewards about how the penalty was to be served on them, hence the reason why M Schumi didn't come into the pits when initially requested by the stewards which then caused the black flag. Basically Benetton didn't know anything about the stop & go served on them as Benetton were advised by the stewards that 5 seconds was going to be added to the final race time instead. In fact on the 1994 F1 season review video, when all of these events were unfolding at Sliverstone 1994, you can even hear Tom Walkinshaw arguing this very same point to the FIA offical, Roland Bruynseraede. Also I think M Schumi said exactly the same thing in the post race press conference.

Having said that, I do agree with the subsequent two race ban for ignoring the black flag afterwards all of this. Its just had the correct procedures been followed by the stewards in the 1st place, then there wouldn't have been any black flag for M Schumi & Benetton to ignore.

Also I had been trying to resist the temptation of posting here on whether or not the Benetton used TC or Launch control during actual races in 1994, since I have already made a few very detail posts previously on this subject (not only in the above link, but also in the unpopular opinions thread on pages... last post on page 3 & a post in the middle of page 17). So I won't repeat what I said there, but basically I am of the opinion that they didn't. Furthermore I have already put forward a number of points which support the view that they didn't use TC or Launch Control during races to which Benetton accuser's have yet to respond to. So anyone interested in this matter, I would urge them to read my previous posts on the subject (& the subsequent replies of course) before deciding for themselves whether they think Benetton cheated in 1994 or not.

Why weren't there more cases of drivers disobeying team orders before Carlos Reutemman in 1981?

Were people back in the day less ruthless, or simply a better class of person?

ibsey wrote:Why weren't there more cases of drivers disobeying team orders before Carlos Reutemman in 1981?

First question: do we know that there weren't or do we just not know of .any cases? Some things just are successfully swept under the rug, never to be seen again-

Second question: if there is a legitimate lack of disobeyed team orders, has it something to do with the drivers or just with the fact that it was harder to transmit team orders back in the day?

Considering the unique trend of Force India hiring drivers that have left the sport for a year (Hulk and Sutil), I wonder who would be in the best position to take one of the Force India seats that does fit that description. Of course, should either driver leave (or get sacked), FI won't be specifically considering drivers with a one year absence. I'm just curious as to who would be in the best position to get the theoretical drive for next season.

Hound55 wrote:Considering the unique trend of Force India hiring drivers that have left the sport for a year (Hulk and Sutil), I wonder who would be in the best position to take one of the Force India seats that does fit that description. Of course, should either driver leave (or get sacked), FI won't be specifically considering drivers with a one year absence. I'm just curious as to who would be in the best position to get the theoretical drive for next season.

Robin Frijns? He's talented, essentially sidelined since reserve drivers do nothing of note, and doesn't bring money, which FI claim they don't look for in a driver.

Klon wrote:

ibsey wrote:Why weren't there more cases of drivers disobeying team orders before Carlos Reutemman in 1981?

First question: do we know that there weren't or do we just not know of .any cases? Some things just are successfully swept under the rug, never to be seen again-

Second question: if there is a legitimate lack of disobeyed team orders, has it something to do with the drivers or just with the fact that it was harder to transmit team orders back in the day?

I know one case that can answer both questions.

1973 Italian Grand Prix. Jackie Stewart can wrap up the title, but a win for Emerson Fittipaldi can keep him in the running if Stewart hits problems. JYS qualified 20th. Meanwhile Emmo is 4th on the grid, and his Lotus team-mate Ronnie Peterson is on pole. Having suffered lots of retirements early in the year, Ronnie is out of the running for the title already. Emmo, Ronnie and Colin Chapman have a meeting on Sunday morning, saying that, if the Lotuses are 1-2, with Ronnie ahead of Emmo, Colin will make a signal from the pitwall for Ronnie to move over and give the win to Emerson.

The situation eventually arises, and with, IIRC around 15 laps to go, Emerson has caught Ronnie. Colin gives the signal, but Ronnie makes no attempt to slow down - he is still driving at 100% everywhere, even defending and blocking when Emerson tries to make a move. I don't know if Ronnie suggests he hadn't seen the signal from Colin or not, but even if he had claimed that, it might be a little difficult to believe, given that Emerson (apparently) had seen the gesture. Either way, it was probably obvious to Ronnie without the signal that he was P1 and it was his team-mate behind.

Nowadays it would be far harder to plead ignorance unless both a) Pit-to-car radio was not working and b) there was heavy spray stopping the pit boards from being clearly visible.

There are probably lots and lots of cases of team orders throughout racing history which were never revealed or were refused to execute by a driver. Fangio's team-mates often pulling in and sacrificing their car for him was a common type of team-order all the way back in the early days of the sport. It's highly unlikely there weren't some other orders going on. The difference is that in this modern age, you can't keep secrets so easily anymore.

Stramala wrote:

Klon wrote:

ibsey wrote:Why weren't there more cases of drivers disobeying team orders before Carlos Reutemman in 1981?

First question: do we know that there weren't or do we just not know of .any cases? Some things just are successfully swept under the rug, never to be seen again-

Second question: if there is a legitimate lack of disobeyed team orders, has it something to do with the drivers or just with the fact that it was harder to transmit team orders back in the day?

I know one case that can answer both questions.

1973 Italian Grand Prix. Jackie Stewart can wrap up the title, but a win for Emerson Fittipaldi can keep him in the running if Stewart hits problems. JYS qualified 20th. Meanwhile Emmo is 4th on the grid, and his Lotus team-mate Ronnie Peterson is on pole. Having suffered lots of retirements early in the year, Ronnie is out of the running for the title already. Emmo, Ronnie and Colin Chapman have a meeting on Sunday morning, saying that, if the Lotuses are 1-2, with Ronnie ahead of Emmo, Colin will make a signal from the pitwall for Ronnie to move over and give the win to Emerson.

The situation eventually arises, and with, IIRC around 15 laps to go, Emerson has caught Ronnie. Colin gives the signal, but Ronnie makes no attempt to slow down - he is still driving at 100% everywhere, even defending and blocking when Emerson tries to make a move. I don't know if Ronnie suggests he hadn't seen the signal from Colin or not, but even if he had claimed that, it might be a little difficult to believe, given that Emerson (apparently) had seen the gesture. Either way, it was probably obvious to Ronnie without the signal that he was P1 and it was his team-mate behind.

Nowadays it would be far harder to plead ignorance unless both a) Pit-to-car radio was not working and b) there was heavy spray stopping the pit boards from being clearly visible.

There are probably lots and lots of cases of team orders throughout racing history which were never revealed or were refused to execute by a driver. Fangio's team-mates often pulling in and sacrificing their car for him was a common type of team-order all the way back in the early days of the sport. It's highly unlikely there weren't some other orders going on. The difference is that in this modern age, you can't keep secrets so easily anymore.

Interestingly, Fittipaldi recently wrote am article for McLaren in which he seems to suggest that, although Chapman had promised that he would signal Peterson to pull over, that Chapman didn't give him the signal to move over. If what Fittipaldi says is true, it would seem that Ronnie didn't pull over because he never got the message in the first case, not that he disobeyed it.

So we made an agreement: if I was leading the race within 15 laps of the finish, and Ronnie was running second, he wouldn’t try to overtake me; but if Ronnie was leading the race within 15 laps of the finish, and I was running second, then Colin Chapman, the Lotus boss, would hang out a pit-board to instruct Ronnie to let me pass, so as to keep my World Championship chances alive.

Ronnie had qualified on the pole, and he took the lead early on. I’d started from fourth place on the grid, but I soon worked my way up to second place behind Ronnie. As we reached the 15-laps-to-go stage, I expected Colin to signal Ronnie to let me pass. But he didn’t. So I began to drive as hard as I could, right on the limit, and I caught up with Ronnie, and we began to race flat-out for the win.

Ronnie was a great guy – I didn’t blame him for not letting me pass because Colin never signalled for him to do so – but in the end I finished second, less than a second behind Ronnie, with the result that Jackie, who’d finished fourth, more than 30 seconds behind Ronnie and me, was World Champion. It was ridiculous. I was so angry with Colin, and that afternoon I decided to leave Lotus at the end of the year.

http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/blog/em ... irst-time/

I have always wondered what that wide strip of Tarmac/Concrete alongside the back straight at Shanghai is for. Drag racing? Aircraft runway? Test track thingy?

Hound55 wrote:Considering the unique trend of Force India hiring drivers that have left the sport for a year (Hulk and Sutil), I wonder who would be in the best position to take one of the Force India seats that does fit that description. Of course, should either driver leave (or get sacked), FI won't be specifically considering drivers with a one year absence. I'm just curious as to who would be in the best position to get the theoretical drive for next season.

Well, the only two drivers that I can think of right now that A. Fit the criteria and B. Force India would actually consider are Kovalainen (who, if Kravitz is to be believed, will be driving a Caterham in practice at Bahrain) and Kobayashi.

Just watched the Classic GP on Sky, 1993 European GP and I have three things to say:

a) The cars don't look very good at all. Fat and bulky. I liked the next evolution in later parts of the 90s much more. Especially the 1998 McLaren.

b) The pitcrue had absolutely NO safety gear. When did that change? I started watching in 1994 and I think they had helmets then but maybe I have forgotten.

c) SPARKS!!

Rusujuur wrote:Just watched the Classic GP on Sky, 1993 European GP and I have three things to say:

a) The cars don't look very good at all. Fat and bulky. I liked the next evolution in later parts of the 90s much more. Especially the 1998 McLaren.

b) The pitcrue had absolutely NO safety gear. When did that change? I started watching in 1994 and I think they had helmets then but maybe I have forgotten.

c) SPARKS!!

I was also suprised by some of the marshalling when removing Brundle's car. There seemed to be very few yellow flags.

b) that was in 1994...in case something would go wrong with the new artificial 'gimmick' they added prior to season:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCykFawdq40

Thanks so much for your very interesting posts Stramala & Mario on the 1973 Italian Grand Prix.

To answer my own question, I guess another possible reason why there doesn’t seem to be as many well known or famous cases of drivers disobeying teamorders prior to 1981 (certainly in comparison to the years after 1981). Is perhaps because there was less world championship races back then in comparison to more recent years. For instance according to Wikipedia the 1950 F1 season comprised of 6 European Grands Prix & the Indy 500 (in which only US teams, constructors and drivers participated in). Even by 1967 there was still only 11 GP’s that year.

So perhaps less races equalled less chances for drivers to disobey team orders?

Although having said that weren’t there lots of non championship F1 races during those early years. So I don’t know whether team orders would still have been implemented within those non championship F1 races also? For instance was Fangio still given no.1 treatment within the Mercedes team in 1954 / 1955, even during those non-championship races, where there was no WDC points at stake?

On a similar theme, perhaps here something else to ponder; Mike Hawthorn won the driver's championship from Stirling Moss in 1958 despite the latter having won four of the ten grand prix to Hawthorn's one. However even more interestingly, following that year’s Portuguese Grand Prix, Hawthorn faced a penalty but Moss sportingly spoke up for him, and the points that Hawthorn was able to keep, subsequently enabled him to edge ahead of Moss for the title.

If that happened in today’s F1…should the driver in Moss’s position be applauded for sportingly helping his title rival claim back lost points? Or should he be heavily critized for not ‘winning at all costs’?

I know in today’s F1 is a world away from F1 in 1958 i.e. it is big business, so there is a lot of money at stake for winning a WDC (more so than compared to 1958), which may make people tend to favour the latter, more ruthless option. However I question whether this is actually a valid excuse. Since I remember watching a UK Snooker competition in around November last year (I think the UK Championship at York) where IIRC during the final, Shaun Murphy admitted he made a foul, when no-one else including the referee had spotted his foul. In doing so, Shaun Murphy effectively gifted the win to his rival Mark Selby. A sporting gesture to my eyes seemed to be on par with that of Stirling Moss in 1958. Similarly there has got to be a fair bit of money or big business involved within that Snooker competition.

To answer my own question, personally I think it show more balls & courage for Moss to do what he did in 1958, then had he simply kept quiet about the matter & won the WDC as a result. So I have to say not only do I respect Moss much more for acting so sportingly. But whenever I think of Hawthorn winning the 1958 WDC (which is rare admittedly) I also tend to think along the lines of ‘well he largely won it due to Moss’ sporting behaviour’. Which IMO is a better legacy than had Moss won the WDC himself. However it would be great to get other people’s thoughts on the matter.

I would have to agree that, in many ways, I respect Moss's sportsmanship in 1958 far more than the "win at all costs" attitude that has become much more prevalent these days, as it takes a lot more courage to do something like that.

Speaking of helping others to the title, you could add to that list Peter Collins in 1956 in the season finale at Monza. On paper, Collins had the opportunity to win the title that year provided that Fangio failed to score and Collins won the race; famously, when Luigi Musso was instructed to hand over his car to Fangio, he ignored the order and continued racing, even though he was not even vaguely in the title hunt.
Collins, famously, chose to hand over his car, and therefore any chance of winning the title, to Fangio (although, admittedly, at the time he handed over his car it looked unlikely that he could have won the race given Moss's performance) - although, given that Musso eventually retired from the race with the same steering arm failure that put Fangio out of the race, perhaps it was fortuitous for him that it was Collins who gave him his car.

Interestingly, it doesn't seem to have been the case that Musso's decision to ignore that order from the team hurt his career - he continued driving for Ferrari until his death in 1958, and his relationship with the team and with Enzo Ferrari remained quite strong.

Anyway, in those early days of the sport, the mentality of those participating was very different - it was much more of a gentlemanly affair, as it were, and the mentality of the time meant that the rigidly hierarchy that quite a few teams had at the time (e.g. at Mercedes or Maserati) were strictly followed. That sense of sporting conduct was quite strong, as was the somewhat deferential nature of the drivers, so it probably explains why, more often than not, the drivers would obey the team orders unless something was quite clearly wrong with the other car (such as Clark eventually overriding the instructions from Ford to not pass Graham Hill in the 1967 US GP when Hill hit gearbox trouble and realised that, if he didn't pass Hill, then they'd both lose out to Amon, something which both Ford and Chapman agreed with after the race).

I do enjoy these interesting disscussions with you Mario. Just remembered Hill & JYS ignored team orders not to race one another at Monza 1965 (wikipedia says it was expected that JYS was supposed to let team leader Hill through) when they were teammates at BRM. JYS is someone i would have expected to follow team orders?

Perhaps in that particular case each driver was trying to establish their auothrity within the team over one another?

Then despite this, Hill saved JYS probably from death at Spa in 1966. One wonders if Jones or Gilles Villeneuve would have done the same for their teammate following Brazil 81 or San Marino 82? (suppose we could ask the same question of Webber and Vettel after the last race).

ibsey wrote:I do enjoy these interesting disscussions with you Mario. Just remembered Hill & JYS ignored team orders not to race one another at Monza 1965 (wikipedia says it was expected that JYS was supposed to let team leader Hill through) when they were teammates at BRM. JYS is someone i would have expected to follow team orders?

Perhaps in that particular case each driver was trying to establish their auothrity within the team over one another?

Then despite this, Hill saved JYS probably from death at Spa in 1966. One wonders if Jones or Gilles Villeneuve would have done the same for their teammate following Brazil 81 or San Marino 82? (suppose we could ask the same question of Webber and Vettel after the last race).

That is true, although to a certain extent I wonder if that was exacerbated in the earlier stages of the race because Clark was also racing both drivers for the lead - in the heat of the moment, I can imagine that Stewart and Hill might have pushed harder than they normally would have.

I suppose the other thing about Hill is that, by comparison to some more modern drivers, is that his attitude to racing and life probably would have meant that he was unlikely to vent his frustrations in the way that later drivers might have. He wasn't the sort of person who would rail against somebody in that way - he is more the sort of person who would cut somebody down to size with a cutting remark if he wanted to bring them down a notch or two.
I suppose the fact that Hill also seems to have decided, to a certain extent, to take Stewart under his wing also helped things (Hill was a decade older than Stewart by that point, and that age gap, plus his success, was something that Stewart did respect), plus the fact that, in general, the relationship that most of the drivers had at the time with one another was often a lot closer and friendlier than it was by the 1980's, such that those emotional ties probably were far more powerful motivators to want to help another driver than any shorter lived anger at them for disobeying a team order might have generated.

When will Kimi retire from a race again? He last retired in Germany way back in 2009. He has since competed in 30 grands prix, all of which he has been classified as a finisher in. I suppose the closest he's been to a retirement since then was Brazil last year, where he could have easily have parked the car when he found the gate was shut on his otherwise ingenious way of returning to the circuit.

East Londoner wrote:When will Kimi retire from a race again? He last retired in Germany way back in 2009. He has since competed in 30 grands prix, all of which he has been classified as a finisher in. I suppose the closest he's been to a retirement since then was Brazil last year, where he could have easily have parked the car when he found the gate was shut on his otherwise ingenious way of returning to the circuit.

OH GOD HE'S TURNING INTO NICK HEIDFELD

East Londoner wrote:When will Kimi retire from a race again?

When the temptation to have an ice cream & a coke get's a bit too much for him.

EDIT: Or even if he spots a particularly good party on his boat (remember what he got up to after retiring from Monaco 2006)

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

East Londoner wrote:When will Kimi retire from a race again? He last retired in Germany way back in 2009. He has since competed in 30 grands prix, all of which he has been classified as a finisher in. I suppose the closest he's been to a retirement since then was Brazil last year, where he could have easily have parked the car when he found the gate was shut on his otherwise ingenious way of returning to the circuit.

OH GOD HE'S TURNING INTO NICK HEIDFELD

No, Kimi's won races.

redbulljack14 wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

East Londoner wrote:When will Kimi retire from a race again? He last retired in Germany way back in 2009. He has since competed in 30 grands prix, all of which he has been classified as a finisher in. I suppose the closest he's been to a retirement since then was Brazil last year, where he could have easily have parked the car when he found the gate was shut on his otherwise ingenious way of returning to the circuit.

OH GOD HE'S TURNING INTO NICK HEIDFELD

No, Kimi's won races.

It's because Nick holds the record for most consecutive race finishes (I think 41 races). If he finishes every race up to and including the Korean GP this year, he'll take that record away from Quick Nick.

redbulljack14 wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

East Londoner wrote:When will Kimi retire from a race again? He last retired in Germany way back in 2009. He has since competed in 30 grands prix, all of which he has been classified as a finisher in. I suppose the closest he's been to a retirement since then was Brazil last year, where he could have easily have parked the car when he found the gate was shut on his otherwise ingenious way of returning to the circuit.

OH GOD HE'S TURNING INTO NICK HEIDFELD

No, Kimi's won races.

I said turning into, not turned. Give him time and he'll be racking up those solid points finishes without a win in sight before you know it.

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:

redbulljack14 wrote:

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:OH GOD HE'S TURNING INTO NICK HEIDFELD

No, Kimi's won races.

I said turning into, not turned. Give him time and he'll be racking up those solid points finishes without a win in sight before you know it.

If this is the case, then expect me to have become a massive Kimi fan by Korea.

Saint Nick gets too much criticism here...I would have expected more apathy from you guys.

Ataxia wrote:If this is the case, then expect me to have become a massive Kimi fan by Korea.

Saint Nick gets too much criticism here...I would have expected more apathy from you guys.

I like Heidfeld, actually. I'm just not averse to having a joke at his expense.

mario wrote:I suppose the other thing about Hill is that, by comparison to some more modern drivers, is that his attitude to racing and life probably would have meant that he was unlikely to vent his frustrations in the way that later drivers might have. He wasn't the sort of person who would rail against somebody in that way - he is more the sort of person who would cut somebody down to size with a cutting remark if he wanted to bring them down a notch or two.

I know what you mean. I love listening to Graham Hill in old interviews because of his wit (one can only imagine what he must have been like in all of those F1 parties from the 1960’s..where Hill was apparently the “life & soul”). Also IMO Graham Hill’s way of cutting somebody down to size using a cutting remark, probably is the most effective way of venting any anger or frustrations generated in those situations.

mario wrote:I suppose the fact that Hill also seems to have decided, to a certain extent, to take Stewart under his wing also helped things (Hill was a decade older than Stewart by that point, and that age gap, plus his success, was something that Stewart did respect), plus the fact that, in general, the relationship that most of the drivers had at the time with one another was often a lot closer and friendlier than it was by the 1980's, such that those emotional ties probably were far more powerful motivators to want to help another driver than any shorter lived anger at them for disobeying a team order might have generated.

This is true. I remember in the BBC4 documentary on either Hill or JYS shown back in 2009 & many times subsequently (the one directed by Mark Stewart… JYS son), showed that Clark, Hill & JYS were all particularly good friends. IIRC Holidaying together with their wives down in Australia during the European winter months, when I believe they were competing in a race series down there. So as you say JYS & Hill’s emotional ties or friendship was probably far more powerful, to let any short lived anger for disobeying a team order come between them. So in that respect it is a slightly different case to the aforementioned examples like Brazil 1981 or San Marino 1982.

East Londoner wrote:When will Kimi retire from a race again? He last retired in Germany way back in 2009. He has since competed in 30 grands prix, all of which he has been classified as a finisher in. I suppose the closest he's been to a retirement since then was Brazil last year, where he could have easily have parked the car when he found the gate was shut on his otherwise ingenious way of returning to the circuit.

He'll next retire when he finds a way to destroy a fairytale result for Sutil. Given both Kimi's and Force India's pace over the years at Spa, it will probably be there, leaving Quick Nick's record intact.

Ataxia wrote:Saint Nick gets too much criticism here...I would have expected more apathy from you guys.

Do you not remember by Nick Heidfeld is NOT boring signature?

Just to clarify: Kimi Raikkonen is the really boring one who has to rely on a speech impediment to be funny, and Nick "Never Sober" Heidfeld is the vodka loving party animal, who bonks at least half the grid girls, right?

BlindCaveSalamander wrote:I said turning into, not turned. Give him time and he'll be racking up those solid points finishes without a win in sight before you know it.

Doesn't that describle most of his 2012 season?

You know ibsey, although I was a little pessimistic when you first floated the idea of running a blog on the side, as it were, at this rate I'm beginning to come around to the idea (if, in the future, I have a bit more free time). It almost feels a bit like chatting over the sport over a pint in the pub, as it were.

ibsey wrote:

mario wrote:I suppose the other thing about Hill is that, by comparison to some more modern drivers, is that his attitude to racing and life probably would have meant that he was unlikely to vent his frustrations in the way that later drivers might have. He wasn't the sort of person who would rail against somebody in that way - he is more the sort of person who would cut somebody down to size with a cutting remark if he wanted to bring them down a notch or two.

I know what you mean. I love listening to Graham Hill in old interviews because of his wit (one can only imagine what he must have been like in all of those F1 parties from the 1960’s..where Hill was apparently the “life & soul”). Also IMO Graham Hill’s way of cutting somebody down to size using a cutting remark, probably is the most effective way of venting any anger or frustrations generated in those situations.

Huismann, who was responsible for operating Zandvoort in the 1970's, noted that Hill's delivery could indeed be rather cutting in the wake of the tragic 1973 Dutch GP. He recalled that, after that race, Hill went up to him and simply said "Not good, Ben" - a simple phrase that, carefully pitched, said all that needed to be said about that day.

ibsey wrote:

mario wrote:I suppose the fact that Hill also seems to have decided, to a certain extent, to take Stewart under his wing also helped things (Hill was a decade older than Stewart by that point, and that age gap, plus his success, was something that Stewart did respect), plus the fact that, in general, the relationship that most of the drivers had at the time with one another was often a lot closer and friendlier than it was by the 1980's, such that those emotional ties probably were far more powerful motivators to want to help another driver than any shorter lived anger at them for disobeying a team order might have generated.

This is true. I remember in the BBC4 documentary on either Hill or JYS shown back in 2009 & many times subsequently (the one directed by Mark Stewart… JYS son), showed that Clark, Hill & JYS were all particularly good friends. IIRC Holidaying together with their wives down in Australia during the European winter months, when I believe they were competing in a race series down there. So as you say JYS & Hill’s emotional ties or friendship was probably far more powerful, to let any short lived anger for disobeying a team order come between them. So in that respect it is a slightly different case to the aforementioned examples like Brazil 1981 or San Marino 1982.

They certainly did spend a lot of time with their families together on holiday and other occasions, such as taking part in the Tasman series (which is the Antipodean series you're thinking of).

The effect of that emotive bond does seem to have been very influential in terms of driver dynamics and in the respect that each driver gave the other one on track and with regards team orders. It's worth noting that Gilles and Scheckter were fairly close friends in the 1970's, and both seem to have respected orders from the team when given - although that level of personal friendship seems to have its limits (before that moment in 1982, Pironi and Gilles seemed to have been on reasonably amicable terms - perhaps it was because they were on amicable terms that Gilles was so hurt by Pironi's move).

mario wrote:

ibsey wrote:This is true. I remember in the BBC4 documentary on either Hill or JYS shown back in 2009 & many times subsequently (the one directed by Mark Stewart… JYS son), showed that Clark, Hill & JYS were all particularly good friends. IIRC Holidaying together with their wives down in Australia during the European winter months, when I believe they were competing in a race series down there. So as you say JYS & Hill’s emotional ties or friendship was probably far more powerful, to let any short lived anger for disobeying a team order come between them. So in that respect it is a slightly different case to the aforementioned examples like Brazil 1981 or San Marino 1982.

They certainly did spend a lot of time with their families together on holiday and other occasions, such as taking part in the Tasman series (which is the Antipodean series you're thinking of).

I imagine this means that Damon also went on holiday with JYS a fair bit at that time? I assume that relationship continued, and continues? Don't suppose this ever led to Damon being offered a drive for the Stewart GP team in the late 1990s?

I wonder what the penalty is for not using the option tires?

mario wrote:You know ibsey, although I was a little pessimistic when you first floated the idea of running a blog on the side, as it were, at this rate I'm beginning to come around to the idea (if, in the future, I have a bit more free time). It almost feels a bit like chatting over the sport over a pint in the pub, as it were.

Again I know exactly what you mean. Currently my brother keeps suggesting to me that I should change career & start my own F1 history blog myself. So I am normally pessimistic whenever he floats that idea to me as well. However, I for one would love to see a blog written by yourself Mario & I dare say other people here would also. Provided you have the free time to do so of course.

Especially if it covers what appears to be niche subjects like F1 rejects or the lesser well know stories of F1 history. Like those topics which we have previously discussed in detail within this forum. Subjects which as far as I am aware, don’t seem to be covered too much by other F1 bloggers (although admittedly I haven’t conducted much research into this yet). Nevertheless you are obviously very knowledgeable on these subjects. And therefore in a great position to provide some extremely interesting or fascinating conclusions on. I mean, from our discussion (on team orders) here yesterday after you mentioned;

mario wrote:I suppose the other thing about Hill is that, by comparison to some more modern drivers, is that his attitude to racing and life probably would have meant that he was unlikely to vent his frustrations in the way that later drivers might have. He wasn't the sort of person who would rail against somebody in that way - he is more the sort of person who would cut somebody down to size with a cutting remark if he wanted to bring them down a notch or two.

Amongst many other things, that comment started to get me thinking, how someone should have advised Gilles Villeneuve to vent his frustrations / anger in a more Graham Hill esq fashion, following Imola 1982. And just maybe Villeneuve might have lived a bit longer as a result. Hence the reason I said…

ibsey wrote:Also IMO Graham Hill’s way of cutting somebody down to size using a cutting remark, probably is the most effective way of venting any anger or frustrations generated in those situations.

Believe me as a massive GV fan, I have read a vast amount of material on Imola 1982 & the final two weeks of GV’s life. A subject as I am sure you are aware has been covered to death elsewhere. And as far as I can recall, not once amongst all my reading on Imola 1982 & the aftermath, had anyone put that same thought into my mind. That GV should have vented his anger & frustration using a cutting remark against Pironi, instead of what he did do.

So I am sure if you were careful with how you approached your blog, given your F1 knowledge you might be able to provide a new fresh perspective on certain things. Particularly if is already in a niche area like F1 rejects to begin with. I have read some F1 blogs recently, particular in the wake of the Webber/Vettel teamorders incident after Malaysia 2013. Where I have to say either those blogs provide a similar perspective to the next F1 blog. Or the writer didn’t seem to have as much knowledge on F1 as you seem to.

As my brother keeps saying to me, why not try to earn an income from your passion & knowledge in life?

Actually, it is funny you mention this now as within the last two weeks I emailed eytl to suggest a couple of proposals (including mentioning to him ‘something along the lines of a blog’). As it seems to me from the Ideas for more Reject Centrale articles thread that there are lots more great stuff which could all be implemented to enhance the main site yet further. Perhaps these new ideas could be funded through advertising? (as mentioned in the other thread I might possibly know some people who can help out on that if the interest was there).

So the way I see things, therefore it would be a win win situation for everybody. As the main site will get more features like a blog, or more reject profiles and articles etc, more regularly. So the main site & the forum might attract an even bigger audience. Furthermore if it did want to look into implementing advertising (via my possible contacts) then it might
earn an income on top of this. Thus taking everything about the website, to the next level.

I would be happy to look into things further if the interest was genuinely there with either yourself or eytl. Of course, you are more than welcome to email me on the matter, should you so wish.

mario wrote:The effect of that emotive bond does seem to have been very influential in terms of driver dynamics and in the respect that each driver gave the other one on track and with regards team orders. It's worth noting that Gilles and Scheckter were fairly close friends in the 1970's, and both seem to have respected orders from the team when given - although that level of personal friendship seems to have its limits (before that moment in 1982, Pironi and Gilles seemed to have been on reasonably amicable terms - perhaps it was because they were on amicable terms that Gilles was so hurt by Pironi's move).

In regards to GV & Pironi relationship prior to Imola 82 I think although Gilles very much welcomed Pironi into Ferrari & even looked out for him. There is the famous case of when Pironi was struggling at Brazil 82 GV asked journalists like Nigel Roebuck to go easy on Didier that weekend because he was still shaken from a massive testing accident just prior to that race. Something you wouldn't normally expect racing drivers to do for their rival (except maybe Moss & Collins from the 1950's).

I get the feeling prior to Imola 82 Pironi was always playing GV. For example DIdier didn't even invite GV to his wedding when the Ferrari team manager was his best man. Remember Pironi had a cold calculting desire to be France's 1st WDC. So no matter how friendly or welcoming GV was, Didier always seemed prepared to screw him over at anytime.

Even GV's wife thought Didier was playing GV at the time and told Gilles to be careful of Pironi. Yet GV appeared to be quite naive in this respect. Until Imola 82. That was why GV was so upset with Didier when he broke team orders. Because he trusted Didier even though his wife told him not to because she could see DIdier was not being genuine towards GV. Especially after how GV looked out for Didier at Brazil 82.

BTW apologies for any bad gramma and submitting the post when it was only half complete. Long story short I was using a PS3 to post which seems to have a mind of its own and im very sleep deprive cause of the GP and practice sessions.

Wonder what happened to the forumite, eagleash? He used to be a regular poster here, yet hasn't been around since February, apparently...

JeremyMcClean wrote:I wonder what the penalty is for not using the option tires?

If the race is red-flagged and not restarted, 30 seconds. Otherwise, disqualification.