Unpopular F1 opinions

[Klon]

Jenson Button is fast becoming McLaren second driver, i.e., McLaren answer to Ferrari's Felipe Massa...

That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing!

[ibsey]

...the B194 was that much more illegal than the FW16...

Fixed.

Double fixed!

The 1994 Mclaren & Ferrari was as illegal as any car in 1994.

The 1994 Mclaren, because a little known fact is they orginally started the season with an automatic gearbox, which actually acted as a sort of traction control device. The FIA spotted it & told them it wasn't allowed. Mclaren claimed they weren't aware that automatic gearboxes were also banned under the 1994 rules.

The 1994 Ferrari because they apparently had a sort of traction control device (apparently Nicola Larini accidently alluded to it in a press interview during the 1994 Pacific GP). Again the FIA spotted it & stopped it.

Furthermore at the 1994 Candian GP, when the teams had to cut holes in the airboxes above the drivers head as part of the new FIA changes. Ferrari actually upset all the other teams by placing their holes on the side of their airboxes, rather than on the spine of the airbox which the others had done. This benefitted Ferrari in terms of less horsepower reduction as a result. After a few races Ferrari were ordered to conform with the rest of the teams.

Finally am I the only one who thinks that the B194 didn't USE traction control during a 1994 GP?

What people tend to forget is Benetton were using the Ford V8 engine which naturally had better torque charcteristics than its rivals. This was clearly demostrated in the 1994 Spainish GP. AFTER Schumi's car was stuck in 5th gear, he still managed to pull away from (at least one, maybe two?) standing starts following a pitstop. Yet down the straights he was still reaching (from memory) approx 130 mph (ish). All that in ONE gear, pretty impressive don't you agree.

Furthermore after Schumi's stop & go penalty in the British GP 1994, he clearly spins up his wheels upon his getaway (probably in sheer frustration) leaving two black tyre skidmarks. Had there been a traction control device he was using, this would not have been possible.

[mario]

Jenson Button is fast becoming McLaren second driver, i.e., McLaren answer to Ferrari's Felipe Massa...

That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing!

There is one major difference between Massa and Button, though. In the case of Button, he is still free to compete with Hamilton, as he has in the past: in the case of Massa, it is not just his team mate, but the team itself, that he is having to compete against...

The 1994 Mclaren & Ferrari was as illegal as any car in 1994.

The 1994 Mclaren, because a little known fact is they orginally started the season with an automatic gearbox, which actually acted as a sort of traction control device. The FIA spotted it & told them it wasn't allowed. Mclaren claimed they weren't aware that automatic gearboxes were also banned under the 1994 rules.

The 1994 Ferrari because they apparently had a sort of traction control device (apparently Nicola Larini accidently alluded to it in a press interview during the 1994 Pacific GP). Again the FIA spotted it & stopped it.

I think that the McLaren gearbox was a slightly strange case, since it did exploit some ambiguity in the rules regarding gear selection.

I might not be remembering that case correctly, but I believe that the McLaren gearbox used a questionable method of gear pre-selection; the driver still had to press the lever to change gear, but the car would essentially optimise the gear shift. Where it was particularly useful was in downshifting, because it essentially stopped the driver from downshifting too early (it prevented the gear change from occurring until a certain rpm threshold was reached), which in theory would have given the drivers an advantage in the braking zones (since they could use as much engine braking as they had available to them without the risk of locking the rear wheels). Technically, it was still a semi automatic gearbox since the driver had to activate the lever to shift gear, but the mechanism itself was clearly intended to be an electronic driver assist by preventing rear wheel locking, and effectively automated the process of downshifting.

It's true that the FIA didn't exactly appreciate what McLaren were doing, and, after holding a hearing about the gearbox, basically said to McLaren "OK, you've got away with it in the past, but we don't want to see you using it again", before shutting off that avenue of development to prevent others replicating that trick. You're right, though, that the ruling on that gearbox was effectively forgotten - mainly because the hearing into their gearbox was scheduled for the same day as the hearing on the Benetton fuel rigs (the WMSC decided to hear all cases relating to illegal car components in one session), and in the fuss over Benetton, the McLaren case was forgotten.

Speaking of allegations of rule bending, though, we've seen that it is hardly a new thing, as the current debate over the legality of the RB7's front wing continues. It's not the first time that Red Bull have been accused of using aero elasticity (i.e. deforming aerodynamic surfaces) to gain an advantage, or cheat the system. A few years ago, they had to revise the design of their rear wing after complaints from Renault, as Symonds used footage from FOM to demonstrate that the Red Bull's wing (possibly the RB3) was deflecting excessively on the main straights.
Mind you, they aren't the only ones - in 2008, both McLaren and Ferrari were accused of having bridge wings that deflected excessively (in the case of McLaren, they had to introduce an extra stay to hold the element up, whilst Ferrari was quietly asked to beef up the connection between the wing and nose cone). And in 2007, whilst there were the debates over the impact of Spygate, that was in part caused by a protest from McLaren accusing Ferrari of having a flexible underfloor, allowing the car to sit closer to the ground at high speed (which is an accusation which Red Bull have had to face in the past).

[DanielPT]

Jenson Button is fast becoming McLaren second driver, i.e., McLaren answer to Ferrari's Felipe Massa...

That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing!

There is one major difference between Massa and Button, though. In the case of Button, he is still free to compete with Hamilton, as he has in the past: in the case of Massa, it is not just his team mate, but the team itself, that he is having to compete against...

It was overlooked (due to the Red Bull clash) and downplayed (by almost everyone) but I don't think Button was allowed to freely compete against Hamilton in Turkey last year. Granted, he overtook and Hamilton fought back but how much of it was due to Hamilton having relaxed his driving and Button having misunderstood the team before overtaking? All we know is that afterwards Button played second fiddle. Would have been that way if it was Hamilton behind? Probably. Anyway, these doubts rise just because McLaren doesn't use team orders as blatantly as the Sith Lords over at Maranello. I get the nagging feeling (much of it based on the drivers comments and on the actual race results) that everyone (or almost) within McLaren think Hamilton is the main driver and Button is the second driver. Based on this, the two differences are that Button is allowed to win in front of an unhappy Hamilton and the gap between the two is not as big as the gap between Massa and Darth Vader...

[ibsey]

I might not be remembering that case correctly, but I believe that the McLaren gearbox used a questionable method of gear pre-selection;

Great Post Mario. Interesting & informative as ever. I couldn't quite remember the exact details of that Mclaren case either. But your version sounds correct to what I (vaguely) remember of it. Thank you for that great post.

[mario]

It was overlooked (due to the Red Bull clash) and downplayed (by almost everyone) but I don't think Button was allowed to freely compete against Hamilton in Turkey last year. Granted, he overtook and Hamilton fought back but how much of it was due to Hamilton having relaxed his driving and Button having misunderstood the team before overtaking? All we know is that afterwards Button played second fiddle. Would have been that way if it was Hamilton behind? Probably. Anyway, these doubts rise just because McLaren doesn't use team orders as blatantly as the Sith Lords over at Maranello. I get the nagging feeling (much of it based on the drivers comments and on the actual race results) that everyone (or almost) within McLaren think Hamilton is the main driver and Button is the second driver. Based on this, the two differences are that Button is allowed to win in front of an unhappy Hamilton and the gap between the two is not as big as the gap between Massa and Darth Vader...

True, I'll grant you the Turkish GP (and not everybody forgot or didn't notice what happened between the McLaren drivers - the very first thing that Eddie Jordan asked Whitmarsh after the race was "What did you tell your drivers to do?", as he knew full well what had probably been said on the radio). I suppose that it is true to a certain extent that Whitmarsh might have been pragmatic - after all, having seen what had just happened to the Red Bull duo, and knowing that both drivers were very marginal on fuel consumption, it might have been the sensible thing to stop the two drivers scrapping, although not necessarily sitting comfortably with the idea of "no team orders".
I think that the biggest issue for Massa, though, is that his confidence and self belief has probably taken a real battering in recent months. Massa had to deal with the fact he missed out on the 2008 title by a tiny margin, and through circumstances that were not always under his control, before his initial struggles with an uncompetitive F60 and the recovery he faced after his accident in the Hungarian GP. Then, he's had his position in the team undermined by the presence of Alonso; he clearly has the major support of the team (probably in part because of Santander, who have followed Alonso to Ferrari), and for most of last year he had the measure of Massa in terms of performance. And, of course, in the one instance where he did have the opportunity to turn that around, it was dashed by the team, and in a very unsubtle way, which also exposed him to a great deal of hostile media coverage.
Added to that, there has been repeated speculation in the press about him being replaced; Ferrari have openly admired Kubica in the past (he was their original choice to replace Massa after his 2009 accident, but the terms of his contract with BMW Sauber didn't allow him to switch easily), and some sections of the media have repeatedly questioned his position within the team. All in all, whilst Massa still has the conviction to get back into the cockpit and drive, you sense that psychologically he may not be comfortable or entirely happy at Ferrari, and just can't channel the performance he once had.

Compare that to Button - firstly, he has achieved his target of becoming world champion, and considering that he had to suffer several years of cars that were utter junk, you could sense the relief he had when he finally did it. Unlike Massa, he didn't have to face seeing the prize he's wanted snatched from under his nose; on the contrary, he can look back to that race in Brazil where he took the title, and the fact that it was something he had control over, which he must be able to take heart from. And, in addition, at McLaren he was still able to put in a respectable performance against Hamilton - OK, Hamilton fought back and finished ahead of him, but he was still able to perform well consistently (something which hasn't been Massa's greatest strength).
And, frankly, you sense that the senior management at McLaren are much more supportive of Button because their team culture is normally structured that way anyway - Button has looked at ease there, and, moreover, McLaren have been prepared to back Button's less orthodox strategies in the past, which suggests that they have confidence in his judgement.

So, perhaps in addition to your suggestions, I'd add that another critical difference between Massa and Button is the fact that Button is much more confident at the moment. In addition, he probably feels that he is not only more valued by his team than Massa does, but that he is receiving better support from, and has greater faith in, the team, especially its senior management.

I might not be remembering that case correctly, but I believe that the McLaren gearbox used a questionable method of gear pre-selection;

Great Post Mario. Interesting & informative as ever. I couldn't quite remember the exact details of that Mclaren case either. But your version sounds correct to what I (vaguely) remember of it. Thank you for that great post.

Thanks - I'm glad that you liked it, and that it helped sort out your queries.

[Ferrim]

Finally am I the only one who thinks that the B194 didn't USE traction control during a 1994 GP?

No, you aren't.

People were screaming "traction control!" after Schumacher's start in Magny-Cours. The problem is, that would be a launch control system, and IIRC Benetton were investigated for using such, not a traction control one as people usually say.

Then, why would Benetton use that kind of control precisely in the French GP when Schumacher was leading the championship 56-23, and not the first race of the season? Schumi had a poor getaway in that race and Alesi overtook him.

Someone said the B194 and B195 were so much better than the Williams... eeer, no. The B194 was probably better than the FW16 in early season, but even then Senna was able to take pole position. As good a driver as Ayrton was, he was no superhuman. Senna scored pole at the very twitchy Aida track, which should heavily favoured the Benetton. So the B194 might have been easier to handle, better balanced and a bit faster over a race distance, but that's about it. By the end of the season the FW16 was a fundamentally better car. Would Senna have won driving it? If Schumacher suffered the same penalties as he did IRL, definitely yes. But, and call me a cynic if you want, I strongly believe he wouldn't have been banned for two races with Ayrton 15 points behind instead of +30, like Hill was.

And for 1995, well, the Williams was better, period. Schumi only scored four poles all season and the gap in the final standings doesn't tell the whole story. If Hill had driven as maturely as he did in 1994, he would at the very least brought the 1995 title down to the wire, and I think everyone here will agree that Schumacher was a better driver than Hill.

And finally, a question I'll never be able to answer about the 1994-95 seasons. Benetton was Schumacher's team, and the cars were tailored around Michael, the team worked for Michael and so on. All of that is right, but, how could Benetton's second drivers be SOOOOOOO slow compared to Schumacher? How could Verstappen be three full seconds slower than Schumacher at the Hockenheimring, a track that was full of straights and nothing else? They had to be driving vastly different cars for that to happen, or Verstappen to be a highly incompetent driver, which he wasn't. The closest he ever got to Schumacher was 0.9s at MagnyCours; I think that's way higher than what Liuzzi used to lose compared to Sutil last year, and he earned a very deserved ROTY award. Even when Schumacher wasn't racing and they couldn't focus on him, Verstappen qualified 1.8 and 1.4 off pole, Lehto 2.5 and 1.7. Then Schumacher came back at Jerez and poled the car, 1.7s faster than Verstappen. WTF? That level of performance earned Badoer laughs all around the paddock a couple of years ago.

In 1995 it was similar with Herbert, who was no slouch either.

[ibsey]

Ferrim, I couldn't agreed more strongly with every word you have said. In fact you might be interested to read a previous post I made regarding the legality of the B194 around Jan 2010 (last post on page 3 of this thread) where I argued exact the same thing as you...but using different points (BTW I would have just copied the text here, but it is quite a big post).


RE; That point about the Schumi's team-mates is one that I have always wondered about also.

I think the answer may lie in something Johnny Herbert talked about (Prior to the 1995 Belgium GP) when refering to the car's handling. Basically Johnny talked about it "being too twitchy for his liking, but if you could keep it on the track, then the car was fast...it's just too twitchy for his liking". I think this might ultimately be the problem ALL Benetton drivers have had to deal with between say 1993 to certainly 1997 (maybe beyond).

It is known that Schumi likes a car with a strong front end & he can deal with an unstable back end, should that become a side effect. Therefore I think all the Benetton's built in the mid 1990's all had this handling characteristic incorporated within them. I guess the view was "we'll build it to suit Schumi & anyone who drives the second car will just have to deal with the car being on edge / twitchy".

I think an reasonably experienced driver like Johnny Herbert (at that point in his career) may have dealt with having to adapt to the car better than, perhaps a young, raw driver like Jos Verstappen. Which perhaps explains why Johnny did slightly better than Verstappen in the second seat. That's why I am very suprised Benetton didn't opt for someone like Martin Brundle to partner Schumi in 1994 (who Steve Matchett explained in his book was very gifted techincally).

FYI Steve Matchett who usually engineer the second Benetton seat basically said that J J Lehto wasn't up to the task. I have also heard J J Lehto, regret not putting more effort into his F1 career.

Secondly I think confidence was another major factor for the second Benetton driver. It couldn't be good for morale being outqualified by around 1 second every weekend, particularly in car that you find difficult to handle. Furthermore I recall, Johnny saying that the team were so geared towards Schumi that they really didn't give him any support whatsoever.

A final clue may lie in what Jean Alesi said when recalling his Benetton years in 1996 & 1997. "When I went there in 1996, it was too late in my career to try to teach me a whole new way of driving. I just drive. I don't like engineers telling me how to do it".

Therefore I'm guessing, for instance, Schumi's team-mate constantly had to put up with comment's like "but Schumi is driving with the aero balance this way...& he is one second faster than you" etc.

[Aerospeed]

FIA = Ferrari International Assistance

[Ferrim]

Ferrim, I couldn't agreed more strongly with every word you have said. In fact you might be interested to read a previous post I made regarding the legality of the B194 around Jan 2010 (last post on page 3 of this thread) where I argued exact the same thing as you...but using different points (BTW I would have just copied the text here, but it is quite a big post).

While I don't think that Hill was as bad as you believe, it was an interesting read. Thank you

[nome66]

FIA = Ferrari International Assistance

ESPECIALLY with Jean Todt in command.

[ibsey]

While I don't think that Hill was as bad as you believe, it was an interesting read. Thank you

I think these days I have a special hatred towards Damon Hill, as during the mid 1990's (believe or not) I used to support Damon in the battles against Schumi. Needless to say, Hill's massive incompetence during these years cause me great pain & suffering. Therefore perhaps (subconisencely) I am now seeking revenge on Damon....

...also I was born in St Albans (Hertfordshire in England) where Damon passed his driving test, very close to where the Hill family lived & I know some people who used to work with Damon (as a motorcycle corrier in South London). So in my mind he was giving our area a bad representation.

[GroupLotusRenault]

Damon Hill was more of a No.2 driver at Williams like in 1993 as Alain prost was No.1. Senna was of course No.1, but after he got killed Hill moved up to No.1 driver. But really he wasnt a world beater.

[mario]

Damon Hill was more of a No.2 driver at Williams like in 1993 as Alain prost was No.1. Senna was of course No.1, but after he got killed Hill moved up to No.1 driver. But really he wasnt a world beater.

I guess part of the problem was that he wasn't mentally prepared to take up the mantle of team leader - he has said as much in the past, since Williams were really gearing up to have Senna in the lead driver role. Sadly, fate intervened, and Hill suddenly found himself forced to lead a distraught team in extremely challenging circumstances. Yes, he wasn't really a great driver - he was solid enough, but not astounding - but he didn't exactly have the easiest starting situation in the early 90's.

FIA = Ferrari International Assistance

ESPECIALLY with Jean Todt in command.

Really? I wouldn't entirely agree with that sentiment (i.e. that the FIA under Todt's management is overtly biased towards Ferrari).

Yes, the FIA have legitimised team orders, although, to be frank, we all knew that team orders were being covertly used, regardless of the FIA banning them or not. And during the WMSC's meeting last year, several other teams petitioned the WMSC in support of Ferrari, and asked the FIA to legalise team orders - it isn't exactly as if Ferrari were the only ones who wanted the team orders system to be overhauled, or even revoked.

And, in addition, the FIA forced through the changes to the engine regulations for 2013 against major opposition from Ferrari - they flat out rejected the suggestion from Ferrari for a 2.0L V6 turbo engine, and rode roughshod over their objections.
Then there was the introduction of the new aerodynamic load tests on the front splitter and front wing, aimed at Red Bull, but also partially targeting Ferrari, who were also accused of having a flexible floor/front splitter (albeit not to the same extent that Red Bull were accused of). Those new tests were most strongly supported by McLaren and Mercedes, so are we to accuse the FIA of bias towards Mercedes and McLaren for bending to their wishes and introducing tests designed to slow down their opponents?

Personally, I would agree that there is probably some bias within the FIA, but I wouldn't say that it is just towards Ferrari - I'd say that it was more biased towards the manufacturers as a whole, possibly in part because of the influence of Bernie and the commercial interests of the sport. After all, one of the major complaints of the smallest teams has been the fact that their voice is often ignored or paid lip service to by the FIA and other teams.

[DonTirri]

Unpopular opinion (of sorts)

No british driver since Stewart (Yes, counting Scots as Brits for this) has been worth a damn.

Hunt won the title only thanks to A) An awesome Car and B) his main rival nearly dying.
Mansell won the title only thanks to A) The.Best.Damn.Car on the grid.
Hill won the title only thanks to A) The best car on the grip, after having lost it twice before in best or second best car.
Button won the title only thanks to A) Having the best car in the first 10 or so races.
Hamilton nearly lost the title despite having the best car on the grid and his opponent having godawful luck (Hungary anyone?)

Out of post-stewart champions only Hamilton has been a fixture in the titlebattle after his championship win, with the others not even gotten close to the championship afterwards.
Also, the only times any of these men have been in championship contention have been situations where they were driving the top car of the grid, and when their car wasn't the best, they weren't near the title.

[WeirdKerr]

the best driver to drive for williams was nelson piquet....this, coming from someone who was from a diehard mansell fan.....

[Cynon]

The best drivers in Formula 1 are not in the best cars -- the exception being Herr Vettel.

[DonTirri]

The best drivers in Formula 1 are not in the best cars -- the exception being Herr Vettel.

Touche. Though in my defense I've been a fan of Vettel ever since he won a race in a car that had no business winning a race. That in my opinion separates a good driver from a great driver. Being able to be competetive in a car that by all intents and purposes shouldn't be competetive. Rosberg in 82. Prost in 86. Senna in 92 and 93. Just to mention a few examples.

[shinji]

Hamilton in 2009...

(I'm no fan btw)

[Cynon]

The best drivers in Formula 1 are not in the best cars -- the exception being Herr Vettel.

Touche. Though in my defense I've been a fan of Vettel ever since he won a race in a car that had no business winning a race. That in my opinion separates a good driver from a great driver. Being able to be competetive in a car that by all intents and purposes shouldn't be competetive. Rosberg in 82. Prost in 86. Senna in 92 and 93. Just to mention a few examples.

Senna had an easier time in 1993 as far as perception goes because he had Michael Andretti for a teammate, and even from what I know about Michael Andretti in CART, I figured that his foray into F1 would result in a lot of crashes as a result of his super-hard-charging style. One does not out-muscle Nigel Mansell, Paul Tracy, and Robby Gordon for nothing... Michael Andretti would have been excellent at Monaco if he was given a longer tenure in F1 because in CART he was always good at navigating through traffic because of all the experience he has on the 1 mile oval tracks -- and to win on those in CART, you had to know how to use backmarkers to set up passes on other cars... he also won in Toronto (street track, very tight, very bumpy, it's not an oval ) like 6 times...

Vettel might have had a great Red Bull Customer Car and a Ferrari engine for that one race that he won (and I reckon would have been a 1-2 if Bourdais's steering wheel hadn't failed...), but that doesn't overshadow his great performances throughout the year in general. Granted, the team favored him over Bourdais, and Bourdais was really old for a rookie these days...

I see flashes of serious potential from the Sauber duo (then again, I knew Kobayashi was going to continue his banzaiosity -- the results be damned -- and Perez and Kobayashi are about even on pace) and from Petrov (who is reminding me of a greater version of Jos Verstappen).

I forgot about Hamilton's 2009. He did a great job in bringing that team out of ToroRossoLand, but I'm wondering if he wouldn't have done as well if the team didn't favor him at Kovalainen's expense. Regardless, he and Jenson Button seem to be very capable in assisting each other as we saw with the whole diffuser-testing in practice @ Malaysia...

[Salamander]

Button won the title only thanks to A) Having the best car in the first 10 or so races.

So did Rubens Barrichello, and Button didn't have the advantage of having prior experience at the very front like Rubens had with Ferrari. He made the most of his early car advantage and still brought the car home solidly in the points when Red Bull, McLaren, and sometimes Ferrari and Toyota and even Force India got the upper hand but spent half the time messing up. He wasn't the fastest, but he was by far the smartest, and didn't complain when the going got tough, unlike a certain Brazilian.

Hamilton nearly lost the title despite having the best car on the grid and his opponent having godawful luck (Hungary anyone?)

I'd venture to say that, despite his title success, 2008 was Hamilton's worst year. He made so many silly mistakes (Canada springs to mind), but I think becoming World Champion allowed him to cool down somewhat, a bit like Vettel.

[ADx_Wales]

Great Strategic Race

Surely the word in the middle cancels out the other two words.

[AndreaModa]

Great Strategic Race

Surely the word in the middle cancels out the other two words.

It's the definition of about 90%, probably more, of all the races in the history of F1.

Which is why I don't think people who are looking for action-packed, wheel-to-wheel races 60 laps long should be watching F1. F1 isn't, and never has been like that so for anyone to expect it to be suddenly like it is rather forgetting the history of the sport.

[DanielPT]

Jenson Button is fast becoming McLaren second driver, i.e., McLaren answer to Ferrari's Felipe Massa...

Unbelievably both of them finished ahead of their team-mates with merit for Button for out racing Hamilton. Lets see at the of the season then...

[GroupLotusRenault]

Damon Hill was more of a No.2 driver at Williams like in 1993 as Alain prost was No.1. Senna was of course No.1, but after he got killed Hill moved up to No.1 driver. But really he wasnt a world beater.

I guess part of the problem was that he wasn't mentally prepared to take up the mantle of team leader - he has said as much in the past, since Williams were really gearing up to have Senna in the lead driver role. Sadly, fate intervened, and Hill suddenly found himself forced to lead a distraught team in extremely challenging circumstances. Yes, he wasn't really a great driver - he was solid enough, but not astounding - but he didn't exactly have the easiest starting situation in the early 90's.

The problem also was even though Hill started out at Brabham he didnt prove himself in other teams and gain the confidents to become a team leader. Didnt in 1994, Schumacher said about Hill not be a world class driver? Harsh or Fact?

[dr-baker]

Damon Hill was more of a No.2 driver at Williams like in 1993 as Alain prost was No.1. Senna was of course No.1, but after he got killed Hill moved up to No.1 driver. But really he wasnt a world beater.

I guess part of the problem was that he wasn't mentally prepared to take up the mantle of team leader - he has said as much in the past, since Williams were really gearing up to have Senna in the lead driver role. Sadly, fate intervened, and Hill suddenly found himself forced to lead a distraught team in extremely challenging circumstances. Yes, he wasn't really a great driver - he was solid enough, but not astounding - but he didn't exactly have the easiest starting situation in the early 90's.

The problem also was even though Hill started out at Brabham he didnt prove himself in other teams and gain the confidents to become a team leader. Didnt in 1994, Schumacher said about Hill not be a world class driver? Harsh or Fact?

Even if you have the fastest car, you still need to capitalise on it, and more so than your teammate, who would have the same car... Mnasell won the first 5 races of 1992, Button won a significant number of races in 2009, Damon managed to win the title in 1996. Now imagine Yuji Ide in any of their cars. He wouldn't be a WDC, would he? May not be in the same league as Fangio, Prost or Senna, but still good enough and better than their teammates in the year in question.

[mario]

Unpopular opinion (of sorts)

Hunt won the title only thanks to A) An awesome Car and B) his main rival nearly dying.

I wouldn't call the McLaren M23 an awesome car - yes, it had good handling for a car of its time, but the M23 was never really the most technically advanced car in the field. After all, by 1976 the M23 was three years old (it had been introduced in 1973); the 312T2 that Lauda was driving that year, which was a major improvement over the dominant 312T he'd used in 1975, and was, frankly, the better car that year.
I'll agree that without Lauda's accident in Germany, Hunt probably would not have won the title, simply because it would have been another walkover by Lauda (Lauda's lowest finishing position that year before Germany had been 3rd place).

Hamilton nearly lost the title despite having the best car on the grid and his opponent having godawful luck (Hungary anyone?)

Again, debatable - if anything, I'd say that the MP4-23 was slightly inferior to the F2008.
Braking wise, the MP4-23 was definitely inferior, since, in the wake of Spygate, McLaren had to revert to a sub optimal braking system from 2006. It's thought that is why, even allowing for Hamilton's normal driving style, he was suffering from an unusually high number of front wheel lock ups that year. Power wise, too, Ferrari were rumoured to have had a slight advantage in 2008 (but most of that power advantage was at the very top of the rev range, which is probably part of the reason why Mercedes has had a slight advantage since 2009 when the rev limit was reduced). Again, though, I'd agree that Hamilton was fortunate that Massa was unlucky at times in 2008.

[Enforcer]

I'm finding "Schumacher deserved his 7 WDCs and 91 GP wins" an increasingly unpopular opinion of late.

[DanielPT]

I'm finding "Schumacher deserved his 7 WDCs and 91 GP wins" an increasingly unpopular opinion of late.

No, not really. Those were old days and he made the most of them and fully deserved it. Now things are different, challenges are different and coming back is not easy.

[Aerospeed]

The Ferrari 412T2 (1995) was an amazing car. It's just that Berger was unlucky and Alesi was sh*t

[Salamander]

Alesi was sh*t

Does not compute.

[Phoenix]

Alesi was sh*t in 1999.

Does not compute.

Now it does.

[Aerospeed]

OK, maybe I didn't explain why Alesi was so sh*t
1. Can you explain him not scoring after his podium in Monaco 1990?
2. He couldn't own Alain Prost, out of all people, in 1991
3. WAY too inconsistent!
4. Can you explain is idioticy in Australia 1997?
5. As Phoenix said, he was sh*t in 1999, nuff said

However, Alesi is not the worst driver ever, and for these reasons;
1. His career was berated by technical problems.
2. He easily owned Ivan Capelli in 1992. (Who wouldnt?)

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

snip

1. May I just remind you that that Tyrrell he was driving, no matter how great in concept, fell behind as 1990 wore on as Tyrrell couldn't really afford development. Of course, 1991, and you had Honda engines and co.
2. Are you trying to say Alain Prost is not a good driver? Shame on you.
5. Have you watched the French GP from that year?

[Klon]

2. He couldn't own Alain Prost, out of all people, in 1991

If you can "own" Prost in the same car, you're doing something very right. This is something not even Senna did (and that 1988 championship result was a farce, there you go with an unpopular opinion), so that argument if quite invalid.

[ibsey]

OK, maybe I didn't explain why Alesi was so sh*t
1. Can you explain him not scoring after his podium in Monaco 1990?
2. He couldn't own Alain Prost, out of all people, in 1991
3. WAY too inconsistent!
4. Can you explain is idioticy in Australia 1997?
5. As Phoenix said, he was sh*t in 1999, nuff said

However, Alesi is not the worst driver ever, and for these reasons;
1. His career was berated by technical problems.
2. He easily owned Ivan Capelli in 1992. (Who wouldnt?)

Initally I wasn't going to reply to both this post & Phoenix's post's as they were SO ABSURDLY STUPID & WRONG I just had to correct you. From your post, one could clearly ascertain, that not only had you NOT watched Alesi in action. But you attempt to argue something without either checking the facts or situation behind them.

But since I can't sleep & I want to kill time before FP3 I will respond. BTW this is going to be a LONG post...

1. Can you explain him not scoring after his podium in Monaco 1990?

The majority of tracks after Monaco, were mostly power tracks & Tyrell that year was vastly underpowered (Ford V8) compared to the top teams. So Alesi was competing against Mclaren Honda's / Ferrari's / Benetton's & Williams Renaults (both of whom had an excellent 2nd half of 1990). His performances in the races were where you would have expected a Tyrell to have finished.

Yet despite this Alesi put in some STUNNING qualifying performances which matched Senna in terms of ability. Quali is somewhere BHP didn't matter as much, as quali tyres & a driver's natural speed were as much a factor. For instance 10 out of the 12 remaining races after Monaco Alesi qualified in the top 8, thus beating at least one top team / driver combo. Standout performances in particular include;

Italy (where Alesi qualified 5th on 'power' track...because Alesi drove with virtually no rear wing but bags of talent to compensate!)
Spain (qualified 4th)
Australia (qualified 5th despite only ONE hot lap..as Ken Tyrell made his do some testing duties during most of the qualifying session).

Also remember at the time Alesi was a new raw driver, who was tasked with the job of leading the 5th best team in F1. On top of this, there was all the on-going 1991 negoations between Tyrell, Williams, Ferrari etc. So considering he was a young driver, who spoke little English & didn't have a manager so didn't understand all the outside politics etc. I think he did a remarkable job. So did Frank Williams, Ferrari & the rest the F1 paddock. But apparanently you know better than all of us???


2. He couldn't own Alain Prost, out of all people, in 1991

As both, Jeroen & Klon have pointed out Alain, isn't exactly a bad driver. Furthermore Alain had already settle in Ferrari & (according to Mansell), made Ferrari his home by the time Alesi had joined. Yet despite this Alesi was a match for Prost & would have won in Spa (a driver's track!) had his engine not died on him.


3. WAY too inconsistent!

That's a fair comment & perhaps early in his F1 career, one could argue that to be the case (as one could with any rookie F1 driver). However if you looked at Alesi's performances from mid 1996 onwards, you will find that he as a driver became consistent. So much so, that in 2001, had it not been for Rakkionen taking him out at his final race in Japan, Alesi would have been the first F1 driver since something like 1966 to finish every F1 race in a season!!! Something Google or Wiki doesn't tell you?

Furthermore your comment as a criticism, reflects a different view of what 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 catergory, hence the reason why drivers like Senna or Gilles Villeneueve are so revered. Inconsistency can be a by product of that attitude!

I would never suggest that Alesi was a "complete" racing driver in the sense of say M Schumi. Jean seemed far too impetuous to be a "complete" racing driver. However I do believe the very qualities which militated against Jean ever being "complete" perhaps also explain why he seems to be revered so much BY THE PEOPLE WHO WATCHED HIM RACE & NOT JUST RELIED ON READING HIS STATS OFF GOOGLE. You could see the guy was trying & not just settling for a 'safe' result.

In any case, a bit like Gilles Villeneueve think "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 at a time when few drivers shared it. That has everything to do with why people still revere him, even today 10 years after he retired.

I find it interesting to read about the passionate nogisatic memories that Jean conjures up with everyone, not only in this website;....

http://www.f1rejects.com/centrale/alesi/index.html (i'm guessing you probably haven't read this)

...but in other website / forums too. Whereas, for example, it would appear to me that there is little in the way of nogisatic for Schumi (the most complete driver ever). In fact I recall when Schumi initial joined Ferrari, there were banners at Monza in 1995 saying things like "Alesi is worth a 1000 Schumi's", because although people admired Schumi's "complete" racing ability, that wasn't what racing was about for the Tifosi.

As I believe Oscar Wilde once said; "Perfection is a quality that is admired but not loved". I guess the opposite is true for triers like Alesi & Gilles Villeneueve.

Simliarily remember, when some of the Italian public critised Schumi claiming he was being a tratior for joining Mercedes recently (despite all he has done for Ferrari). Whereas I am not aware of the same treatment to either Alesi or Mansell, whom both appeared to be still admired by the Tifosi even after they had left Ferrari. Anyway I digress.

4. Can you explain is idioticy in Australia 1997?

In short, human beings make mistakes. That's a fact of life.

If you looked at the details of that race you will see Alesi spent most of the race stuck behind Hakkien's Mclaren, when Hakkien pitted, Alesi wanted to pump in some hot laps to leapfrog the Mclaren. He had just set the 2nd fastest lap of the race & was 'in the zone' so much, he simply forget how many laps he was allowed to do (& the radio was broken).

5.As Phoenix said, he was sh*t in 1999, nuff said

You really haven't watched Alesi in 1999 have you. Because if you had, then you would have seen;

1. His stunning charge through the field in Brazil (matching the leader's pace), before his gearbox let him down.

2. Scored points in San Marino, despite being on the (unconventional) three stop strategy. Therefore Jean had to pass & repass many cars during the race, on a track not known for overtaking!!!

3. Him setting a brilliant qualifying lap in Spain 1999 early on in the session, which the wasn't bettered by any of the front runners until either their 3rd or 4th attempt. He qualifed 5th & was running 5th or 6th in the race until his electrics packed up.

4. Would have finished 2nd had he not been taken out on the 1st corner. His car was set-up perfectly for the race..on a track he had previously won at...a rare thing indeed!!!

5. France 1999. Only Alesi & Kubica (to my knowledge) have ever qualified a Sauber on the front row. When Alesi did it (once during each year he drove for them), The Sauber was no where near as competitive as Kubica's Sauber & Alesi didn't have the luxury of a works BMW engine!!! Enough said.

6. His stunning charge through the field in Austria 1999 (just ahead of a recovering Hakkinen & Hakkinen could not pass Alesi)

7. Him overtaking two cars in one corner (les coombes) during the middle of a dry race...something I have never seen another driver even attempt, let alond pull off since.

8. European GP, Alesi pitted on the right lap for wets tyres, but as he left the pits his transmission packed up (a bit like Frentzen). Before Alesi retired he was ahead of all the podium finishers (Herbert, Trulli & Barrichello).

9. His excellent performance in the Japanese GP to claim 6th.

BTW, Alesi got so fed up with the unreliability of the Sauber constantly costing him good results, following his retirement in Hungary 1999 he actual declared on F1- ITV that he would be moving to Prost for 2000, before even informing the Sauber team.

As this post is becoming extermely long, I will briefly say check your facts in regards to Berger being unlucky in 1995 and Alesi being sh*t, as you are only embrassing yourself due to your clear lack of knowledge on the subject. Regarding 1995 let me remind you of Argentina, San Marino, Spain, Monaco, Canada, France, UK, Belgium, Italy, Nurburgring, Japan & these are just the examples of the very top of my head.

To re-emphasis the point, in 1996 despite being equal no. 1, Berger out-qualified Alesi, the same number of times as Irvine out-qualified Schumacher. ONCE.

Hey but don't let my facts get in the way of your warped illusions.

[Jeroen Krautmeir]

That was brilliant stuff ibsey!

[ibsey]

That was brilliant stuff ibsey!

Thanks Jeroen, it never ceases to amaze me the number of 'opinions' that are based on either speculation, distorted facts, or no knowledge in the actual subject they are discussing.

[ADx_Wales]

Hmm, thought the purpose of this page was to be the same as the "shortest f1 books" thread.

Post something in here that will get argued and thus not have to bother arguing about it.

Arent warped illusions awesome.

[DanielPT]

Arent warped illusions awesome.

I love warped illusions. Like the one I posted a few months ago saying Mark Webber could do something this year...