Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
TJ?
Can you give an example where we would be discussing hamilton and Alonso and the difference in results is so wide apart in cycling due to equipment?
You know what i said was true.
Examples?
Does the "best" rider win the TdF?
I'd argue it's a team effort, from the bikes, the fitness trainers, the coaches and, of course, the rest of the riding team.
Was Obree the "best" rider when he was setting world records? Was Boardman?
Both used engineering and design to help them go faster.
A sport so poor we cannot even say who is the best driver- surely that is the point
I don't think there's many sports where there is no dispute about who the greatest is, is there?
Great shout, ScotR - got no affection for Schumi but his second in a crippled Benetton in Spain '94 and his win there in the wet in '96 in a car that had no right to be first across the line... Out of the very top drawer.
Were boardman and Obree as far apart as Hamilton and Alonso due to engineering?
WHilst there is a modicum of truth in your point "marginal gains" in cycling the problem with F1 is , largely, engineering is all that really matters. Mercedes will win whomever is the pilot as their car is the fastest. The car will win.
That is not true of a "team" sport like cycling . Brad would not have won it on a chopper bike nor without Froome but his bike did not win it for him as it will for Mercedes this year
I would be surprised if you actually disagree with what I am saying and yes I can see your point
F1 has always been about innovation but it was also about racing
Of late it has very very little of the later. After the very first qualifier we can say who will win the title - certainly which team if not quite which driver.
Schu's wins back then? Right. Let's not go into the traction control software 'we didn't use it, honest but it was too expensive to remove'. The team manager later banned from F1, the numerous black flags, deliberately colliding with DH oh and other rumours around the car.
Do you honestly think a F1 car of any calibre could be stuck in one gear yet still be mysteriously so good, or the driver can magically get a similar car to others stuck in one gear in that situation OK like that? The car wasn't legal. I wasn't convinced at the time that he was THAT good. He's very good yes but utterly ruthless, win at with all means.
Damon was robbed of at least another title, maybe three crowns total.
This is awful. Murray Walker chuntering on, badly.
Thumb hovering on the power switch.
I've somewhat warmed to Hamilton but won't be fully convinced if he doesn't jump ship to a less competitive team and make things happen.
Everyone was staggered when he went to Mercedes, they all thought he was a bit mad to leave McLaren.
WHilst there is a modicum of truth in your point "marginal gains" in cycling the problem with F1 is , largely, engineering is all that really matters. Mercedes will win whomever is the pilot as their car is the fastest. The car will win.
The car will only win if the driver is good enough, the reverse is true.
I would be surprised if you actually disagree with what I am saying and yes I can see your point
Fantastic to have you both disagree and agree in such a short amount of text.
Of late it has very very little of the later. After the very first qualifier we can say who will win the title - certainly which team if not quite which driver.
Absolutely not of late - that's been the case for the thirty-odd years I've been following the sport. People talk as though it's unusual for a team to dominate, F1 kicked off in 1950 and whilst the dominant team hasn't always won, it's been the case for the majority of years.
Schu's wins back then? Right. Let's not go into the traction control software 'we didn't use it, honest but it was too expensive to remove'. The team manager later banned from F1, the numerous black flags, deliberately colliding with DH oh and other rumours around the car.Do you honestly think a F1 car of any calibre could be stuck in one gear yet still be mysteriously so good, or the driver can magically get a similar car to others stuck in one gear in that situation OK like that? The car wasn't legal. I wasn't convinced at the time that he was THAT good. He's very good yes but utterly ruthless, win at with all means.
Did you watch the race? Traction control tech back then was clearly audible, and from the on-car shots he was clearly stuck in a high gear and it was clearly not traction controlling itself. Maybe they invented some stealth TC that couldn't be heard, never seen anything that suggested that it had been - all I read about was that the software was still technically there but couldn't be used. Find me one bit of evidence that suggests Spain 94 wasn't legit.
And Spain 96? Thoughts? TC again?
The car will only win if the driver is good enough
ISH
To win the title this year you need to drive for mercedes
Its clearly more about the car than the driver.
If it was not we would not be debating who the best driver was.
Fantastic to have you both disagree and agree in such a short amount of text.
Utter comprehension fail- could you at least make your childish digs funny?
That Haas is awesome.
Williams, Sauber and Force India should stop complaining about them, those teams have had years and years to perfect their F1 craft. Even with Ferrari bits Haas are very much new boys.
That welsh **** is ruining the coverage for me and Susie doesn't seem to contribute much, but otherwise a great race.
That welsh **** is ruining the coverage for me
Steve Jones REALLY needs to stop talking - his 'off the cuff' remarks are just cringeworthy.
DC and Lee McKenzie are the only decent ones in there right now and the latter should be given a much bigger role.
I'm also struggling to see why you'd employ Karun Chandhok as 'technical analyst' when you've got Mark Webber and DC.
[Chandhok] did part of a season in 2010 and then one race in 2011:
'Chandhok’s one-off appearance was not successful: he ended the race last, two laps behind team mate Heikki Kovalainen after several spins.'
Yeah, great choice.
they had a chap (i can remember who) on radio 5 extra talking during practise 2 about a conversation he had with an engineer/s from mercedes. the gist was they (merc) think the ferrari engine is suspect and can't run at full tilt for very long, seems they may have a point.
[quote=Junkyard ]Were boardman and Obree as far apart as Hamilton and Alonso due to engineering?
WHilst there is a modicum of truth in your point "marginal gains" in cycling the problem with F1 is , largely, engineering is all that really matters. Mercedes will win whomever is the pilot as their car is the fastest. The car will win.
That is not true of a "team" sport like cycling . Brad would not have won it on a chopper bike nor without Froome but his bike did not win it for him as it will for Mercedes this year
I would be surprised if you actually disagree with what I am saying and yes I can see your point
F1 has always been about innovation but it was also about racing
Of late it has very very little of the later. After the very first qualifier we can say who will win the title - certainly which team if not quite which driver.
I get that you think there is an unhealthy influence from the amount of science and engineering in F1 - and I don't think it can now be "un-invented". I still think that only the very top drivers are capable of delivering.
However, your point that there is something unusual in F1 that makes it difficult to determine who is "best" just doesn't stand scrutiny - it applies to countless other sports. Some are, again, influenced by technology be that the material used for swimming costumes, the design of bob-sleighs, bows whatever. Team backup in things like nutrition, training methods, drugs (legal and illegal) also influences performance.
And then there's the whole pro-sport TdF thing. Could Froome have "won" without the team assembled around him? Could another rider in that team have "won"? How can you possibly determine who is the best rider each year? TdF history is littered with almost-winners who might have made the high spot if they'd had a better team around them. Truth is, the whole concept of naming a winner for that type of racing is complete nonsense.
Apart from it being unbearable dull these days, the biggest issue I have is about 90% of F1 chat in the media usually revolves around what happening OFF the track. The politics, the bickering, the arsed up new 'rules'.
For me, we want Jim Clark back 🙂 1967 Italian GP, leading for 12 laps, puncture, gets lapped by everyone. Then with 48 laps remaining, unlaps himself, then overtakes everyone to take the lead, only for a faulty fuel pump meaning he finishes 3rd. Bosh. That's what I want to see!
Ahhh! the 60' and 70's eh?! Like when real motoring was all about keeping a stock of parts, like propshaft UJ's, half shafts, a full ignition set, in the boot of the car along with tools and a bottle jack, because it wasn't real motoring until you had to change something at the side of the road! 😉
As for best driver, JY speaks sanely, motorsport at every level has long been all about the biggest chequebook. In this regard, F1 demands the latest and most expensive design and technology, which makes it a team effort, which kinda makes comparing F1 drivers over the years pretty pointless. Does it matter? They were / are all pretty awesome drivers.
Having said that, IMO, a fast car won't necessarily win without a good driver, who would also be able to be competitive in a not-so-quick car. In the realms of F1, if all these guys drove the same car, they would be within 10th's if not 100th's of a second of each other.
F1 is a series where teams design and build their own cars,with a championship for the drivers too. Always has been as much about the machinery as the man, but a big part of being a top level driver is having the ability to communicate to your engineers precisely what the car is doing, and to be able to differentiate between changes in components. But the engineers then need to be able to design bits to improve the car and fit with the drivers feedback. So a good partnership between driver and engineer makes the car better, and if you can understand that relationship then you can get why f1 racing is the way it is.
Which is why most of the time, one team dominates. If you want close racing watch a one make series.
where teams design and build their own cars
Haas don't.
Haas don't.
Depends on your definition.
They have designers who 'designed' the car. Ok, many parts have been supplied by another team, who no doubt also gave advise, but the car was designed by Haas engineers.
Romain Grosjean is the star of the paddock at the moment - Driving superbly in every area. What a marked change from just a few years ago. I remember Webber describing him as "First Lap Nutcase"
Is it just me, or is Rosberg just so unbearably dull? Vettel is always joking around as is DR, Hamilton is up and down and often petulant, but still worth watching, but Nico...I really want to like him, but....
Is it just me, or is Rosberg just so unbearably dull?
Not just you. I watched his post race interviews yesterday and just though he came across as trying too hard.
coogan - MemberFor me, we want Jim Clark back 1967 Italian GP, leading for 12 laps, puncture, gets lapped by everyone. Then with 48 laps remaining, unlaps himself, then overtakes everyone to take the lead, only for a faulty fuel pump meaning he finishes 3rd. Bosh. That's what I want to see!
So you want a series with one very dominant car that only fails to win due to mechanical failure? I thought we wanted racing, you've just described Lewis in his Mercedes!
What an amazing drive from Pascal Wehrlein! How did he manage that?!?
So - how do we feel about aggregate qualifying!? They really, really seem to want to fix something that wasn't broken...
shermer75 - Member
What an amazing drive from Pascal Wehrlein! How did he manage that?!?
His fastest lap was only 4/10ths slower than Kimi.
The real question is how did Marcus Ericsson end up ahead of him when his fastest lap was almost 2.5s slower the PW and a full second slower than ANY of the finishers?
So - how do we feel about aggregate qualifying!? They really, really seem to want to fix something that wasn't broken...
Its the continuation of an experiment that they've been carrying out for at least the last ten years.
They're trying to find if there's a limit to how spirit-crushingly tedious they can make a 'sport' before middle aged blokes will actually turn it off and go and do something less soul-destroyingly dull instead
So far the conclusion is that, as long as they put the odd VROOM VROOM sound of a revving engine, then there's definitely no limit at all. Despite it defying all previous evidence regarding human attention spans.
Next season's format will involve an extended period before the race where you can watch the paint drying on the cars after they've sprayed them. Whoever dries slowest gets pole.
No wonder Button found an excuse to park the car. Out qualified, out driven and out raced by a substitute who hadnt got any closer to the car than I have until a few days ago. It must be really embarrassing for Button.
It would have been if he hadn't got past him at the start and was comfortably leading his (admittedly very good) new team mate before his engine went pop.
but the car was designed by Haas engineers.
And built by Dallara.
Utter comprehension fail- could you at least make your childish digs funny?
Can't be bothered - if you don't know the sport and don't like it, why are you reading the thread? Not disputing your right to, but unless you actually enjoy a spot of Sunday night trolling, why bother?
The real question is how did Marcus Ericsson end up ahead of him when his fastest lap was almost 2.5s slower the PW and a full second slower than ANY of the finishers?
This is a really good point. How does that even make sense? Where did you get that info- it's be good to have a peruse! 🙂
No wonder Button found an excuse to park the car. Out qualified, out driven and out raced by a substitute who hadnt got any closer to the car than I have until a few days ago. It must be really embarrassing for Button.
Did this actually happen though? Admittedly Button was out qualified but In the race I watched Button retired on lap 7 while in 9th place ahead of Vandoorne. It’s a shame really as it would have been interesting to see who came out on top, Vandoorne did a great job in his first GP.
It’s a shame really as it would have been interesting to see who came out on top, Vandoorne did a great job in his first GP.
Competent rookies with nothing to lose always do well in their first few races, as everyone else tends to get out the way fearing they may get taken out by an over ambitious lunge for a pass. Certainly seemed to be the case for a few of his overtakes, trying it on in places no-one else does as the door would be firmly be shut in the face of anyone who had something to lose. It obviously still takes skill, both to do it and to know you can try when other cant, but its difficult to say anything more than that IMO.
This is a really good point. How does that even make sense? Where did you get that info- it's be good to have a peruse!
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/2016/bahrain-grand-prix/results ]Full Race Results[/url]
binners, not hugely different than any other sport with money as a disproportional focus?
Find me one bit of evidence that suggests Spain 94 wasn't legit.
The illegal ride height? The illegal fuel rig were thet pulled the filters out to get a better flow? (And memorably ignited Vestappen Snr.)
Vandoorne did an excellent job, deinfinately. To say that Button came out looking crap next to him is rubbish.
In Spain?
This is a really good point. How does that even make sense?
Ericsson 2 stopped and was saving fuel in his final stint.
Wehrlein 3 stopped.
Sources:
[url= http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/04/03/2016-bahrain-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops/ ]http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2016/04/03/2016-bahrain-grand-prix-tyre-strategies-and-pit-stops/[/url]
[url= http://planetf1.com/news/sun-renault-sauber-manor-force-india/ ]http://planetf1.com/news/sun-renault-sauber-manor-force-india/[/url]
In Spain?
Yep.
The whole of the 1994 season was a catalogue of cheats and fiddles and poor sportsmanship by Benneton
And the championship was won by the team proved to have been cheating, after a deliberate collision by their driver on Damon Hill.
I'm not a huge fan of conspiracy theories in F1 because they tend to be overblown, but the Benetton B194 was investigated and the traction control software was found to be intact, selectable via a "missing" menu option 13, which may or may not have been useable by the driver.
[ninja edit] A ha! I've found the original FIA press release: [url= http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/benetton-launch-control-fia-press-release/ ]here[/url]
That clarifies that the driver could not force the ECU into launch control mode, but that a laptop could...
While the presence of the code could be explained by the fact that it's easier to deactivate code than to remove it completely - and completely legitimate, Benetton couldn't explain why missing menu options were selectable.
Jos Verstappen accused Benetton of cheating, as reported by Joe Saward [url= https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/12/07/verstappen-tells-it-as-he-sees-it/ ]here.[/url]
I'm not sure if Schumacher was complicit or not in using banned driver aids, but I'd be willing to bet may last tenner that the collision at Adelaide was deliberate. Whatever the deal, Hill's attempted overtake of the stricken Benetton as naive in hindsight...
That 1994 press release is really interesting - not ever seen that before - doesn't exactly bring clarity that they were not cheating does it! Well done for posting that up, good to read...
And I'd bet my last tenner with yours that Shuey's collision was deliberate too
I guess the FIA couldn't prove the Benetton had plugged in a laptop as car no 5 was in the pits, activated the launch control and then supplied the FIA with the kosher ECU software for analysis. Burden of proof and all that.
It's a safe bet that other teams would have had 1994 cars on the grid with an evolution of the 1993 ECU software with deactivated sections of code - having the code present was not a breech of the rules themselves (note: according to Benetton, the team did use the launch control software during testing in 1994).
.
This thread was better before Hora removed his comment about how Hill should've been a triple world champion.
It's quite interesting watching the interviews from back in the day, Hill comes across as terribly awkward, mixing his metaphors and all over the place, but there's an innate decency and humility about him that was at odds with Schumacher's assured self confidence. Had he won the championship in 1994, he'd still have blown it in 1995 when Schumacher won it fair and square.
One day, it'll make for a fascinating Hollywood movie...
No he should have. Easily twice.
I deleted the whole commented as I also commented would Senna have been pushing that hard from the off at Imola if the Beneton was ..?
If he won it he'd have blown the next year? No confidence and he was still within his talent window firmly. They are racing drivers not PR puppets. I'd look terrible in front of a camera as would 99% of STWers
The illegal ride height? The illegal fuel rig were thet pulled the filters out to get a better flow? (And memorably ignited Vestappen Snr.)...... The whole of the 1994 season was a catalogue of cheats and fiddles and poor sportsmanship by Benneton
They got DQ'd for ride height at one GP (Spa, was it?) because the plank that was used to measure whether teams were running lower than regulation was worn below the legal minimum - by definition, as it got measured as part of post race, this didn't happen at any other GP therefore you can be reasonably sure that they didn't run illegally low at any other GP.
Re the fuel rig filters, they claim they were advised to remove the filter by the company that made them, and there is some evidence to corroborate it - most of the other teams did it too, not sure if it was implicated in the Boss's fire but don't think they were punished for it.
Traction control has been done.
I've got no doubt that Adelaide 94 was a deliberate action - Hill had no choice but to go for it IMHO, I'd have happily seen Schumi shot for it.
I know this will sound rubbish but from a friend who was and is still heavily involved in F1 Benetton under Briatore were constantly cheating.
"The car will only win if the driver is good enough"
Yes, but as drivers like Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, and more recently Button and Raikkonen have proved, you don't need to be the best driver if you have the best car. Hill was a clear no.2 to Senna (Hill would never have been anywhere near Senna in terms of talent), Villeneuve was lucky to be in the best car when Hill left Williams, Button was lucky that Brawn exploited the diffuser loophole, and Raikkonen was lucky to be in a Ferrari at the right time. All four drivers capable of great results, but none are what I'd consider truly 'great' in the same way as Senna, Prost, Schuey, Alonso and Vettel. I'd have Hamilton up there if he'd managed what others have done; to win in an inferior car, but so far, he seems to have had a lot of luck in getting good seats really. Alonso and Vettel stunned early in their careers, by getting results they technically had no right to. Hamilton is clearly one of the best drivers currently, in F1, and I'd much prefer to see him actually battling with other drivers, than watching a technically superior car win again and again.
Raikkonen is stupid fast or was, just a head full of toys. Actually I think you are doing a disservice to all 4 drivers. Considering Hill never raced karts he was Capitol Radios bikey for Gods sake to become world champion was an astonishing achievement
... you don't need to be the best driver if you have the best car...
Not disagreeing, just saying that the increments at that level are small, the guys you mentioned are not "greats" but they wouldn't have been world champion if they hadn't been exceedingly good drivers indeed. Let's face it, there was another bloke with the same kit and HE didn't win it.
Clodhopper you do know post ban on electronic gizmos the Williams was abit of a handful right? What year was that and what bloke who was good at test driving and driver feedback helped reform that car?
Yep Hill missed out on the acknowledged kart route due to family circumstances. I can't speak for the chap but ^^ is what I saw, read and understand from the 90's.
Post electronics ban, most of the cars were a handful - you should read Jos Verstappen's and Johnny Herbert's feedback on the B194, it was apparently woolly at the limit and subject to snappy oversteer all the way through the year. The Williams FW16 started out as a pup (Senna even lobbied the team to revert to the interim FW15c), but was thoroughly sorted by the last three races of 1994.
All this should not detract from the job that Damon Hill did that year - he turned up at the Williams factory the day after Imola to help make sense of the data from Senna's crash, he also pulled the team out of the despondency it had sunk into and dragged a poorly understood and probably undeserving car by the scruff of the neck to win at Spain. Hill grew up very, very quickly in those few weeks, despite having to face a sceptical press and taking home a salary a fraction of what the team and Renault paid Nigel Mansell for his 'guest' appearances.
Suzuka 1994 was a defining moment in Hill's career, he drove like a champion on that day. He was - and still is - one of my absolute F1 heroes.
They got DQ'd for ride height at one GP (Spa, was it?) because the plank that was used to measure whether teams were running lower than regulation was worn below the legal minimum - by definition, as it got measured as part of post race, this didn't happen at any other GP therefore you can be reasonably sure that they didn't run illegally low at any other GP.
It's Spa I'm thinking of, the plank had also tasted kerb a fair amount more than it should have that race, which iirc is what took it below the limit
Hill was a clear no.2 to Senna (Hill would never have been anywhere near Senna in terms of talent),
Weird thing to write when we only have 3 races where a direct comparison can be made and in 2 of those Senna despite all his experience and talent crashed out, 2nd time fatally.
Note that Hill in his 1st year beat Prost at times in the same car. He also won a GP in a Jordan and placed 2nd in an Arrows. Considering how old Hill came to F1 we'll never know his full potential, but to say he was nowhere near Senna in terms of talent is ridiculous.
Oh aye I remember him crossing that line to take the crown, that and Lewis's first title. I'll always remember where I was at that moment 8)
"to say he was nowhere near Senna in terms of talent is ridiculous."
I don't think so. Senna was a master who come to totally dominate F1 and deposed Prost as the top driver. Hil was an excellent driver, undoubtedly talented. But he won only when his Williams was the totally dominant car. Let's not forget Schumacher winning the WC despite having had 3 DQs/exclusions. No, sorry; Hill was outclassed by Schuey in my opinion, so I don't think it is ridiculous to say he wasn't up to Senna's standard at all.
You know Senna was also in very good cars out of the field..
There's "cheating" and there's "interpreting the limit of the regulations". Often the lines between the two are somewhat blurred.
In the 1970s, cars were weighed before a race to ensure they met the minimum weight regs. It wasn't long before some cars appeared on the grid with massive "coolant tanks" full of water, which would be emptied, Wacky Races style at the first corner, much to the consternation of anyone following too closely behind. This was technically "legal" at the time, if hugely unsporting.
There have been attempts to circumvent the rules in plain sight - e.g. the rule that no moveable aerodynamic devices be fitted to a car was routinely sidestepped thanks to certain teams fitting front and rear wings that have flexed and deformed under extreme aerodynamic load, reducing drag and raising speed.
In the 1960s, the rules dictated that a physical barrier be put in place between the driver and engine, to act as a bulkhead in event of fire. Lotus' interpretation of the rules were that the bulkhead didn't have to be fireproof, so theirs was made of cardboard.
There is also a reason why cars weave over to the dirty side of the track once they cross the finish line.
weave over to the dirty side of the track
Euphemism?
Sauber seem to be in major trouble, talk of them not making China (GrandPrix247 is notorious for gossip though!), but Monisha wasn't in Bahrain and was apparently trying to find a solution...
http://www.grandprix247.com/2016/04/05/ferrari-bail-out-sauber-to-pave-way-for-alfa-romeo-return/
Sauber seem to be in major trouble,
A real shame, was always a bit of a Sauber fan! Hasn't been looking good for them since the beginning of last year, when they ditched Van Der Guarde for the pay drivers.
How come the back of the field cant get sponsors? Sauber were on the TV coverage almost as much as everyone else at the last GP, or at least enough that I noticed them. Surely that has to be worth a something to someone? even if its just for one race? (I think teams can add/remove sponsor images of a certain size to the car between races? sure ive seen that before)
How come the back of the field cant get sponsors?
I think it's the old 'Card Rate' rule that Ron Dennis is sticking too. I'm sure they could get lots of sponsors, but not at the right price. No point running a Greggs logo on the sidepods in return for a years supply of pasties (although some may see this as a decent return!).
If F1 teams start letting out advertising space at cheap prices this could have a knock on effect to lower formulas too, as a sponsor could say "I'm not sponsoring your GP3 team for £???.?? when I can sponsor Sauber for the same price".
Weird thing to write when we only have 3 races where a direct comparison can be made and in 2 of those Senna despite all his experience and talent crashed out...
He crashed out of all three, although only one could clearly be said to be entirely down to him. That does nothing to harm his legacy as one of the smartest, quickest and most ferocious drivers we've been lucky enough to see - Senna Vs Schumacher would have been utterly epic.
That does nothing to diminish Damon's legacy - for my money his reputation just how good he was, to win his first race in his first full season and take the title to the wire in his second, to be robbed of an Arrows victory by mechanical failure and win in a Jordan - these are not easy feats.
Interesting insight into the Benetton fuel fire since it's been mentioned in this thread
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/f1-broken-rules-fire-willem-toet
Interesting write up, I remember that at the time and the "telling off" they got for removing the filter!
Hill nearly winning the Hungarian GP in the Arrows and bringing it in with hydraulics failure for a podium kind of goes against the earlier statements that he only won as he was in the best car.
Old qualifying is back for China...
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123660/f1-old-qualifying-format-back-from-china
That does nothing to diminish Damon's legacy
I really like Damon; he's a class act. He's also the first to say that he so nearly won the championship in '94; and that Senna would have won it easily.
If Senna hadn't cashed out, I doubt anyone would have had a chance at a WDC until he stopped driving or Williams lost the Renault engine.
4 WDC's up for grabs? Maybe.
Quite enjoyed reading the insider's report on the Benetton refuelling fire.
I had to grin to myself when reading about the level of technical assistance given to Ligier staff, of course the deal between Benetton and Ligier gave Benetton access to the coveted Renault V10s, so it was by no means a one-sided exchange. The Benetton B195, complete with the Renault engine was the car to beat in 1995. Interestingly, Johnny Herbert won twice in spite of having limited access to Schuey's data and testing mileage.
Love haterz saying Damon/Lewis etc only won cos they are in the best car..
Prost
Senna
Schu
How many titles did they win in a average car?
Glad to hear the qualifying climbdown from Bernie and Jean, but they'd better put on a hell of a show in China. I'd still put a few bob on some form of rejigged quali being introduced by the end of the year.
As for driver comparisons, a few years ago there was a karting competition where some top drivers were each given an identical kart and an engineer, then they went racing. Schumi left them all behind, so I expect he had the best kart with dodgy tyres and illicit traction control. 🙂
Also worth noting that the "best" car isn't always the best for everyone - eg vettels mastery of the ebd technique, or fisichella looking like he was in the form of his life until he sat in a Ferrari.
EDIT must've been the 96 edition I saw as looks like Schumacher didn't win that much after all, and my memory of the format is a bit addled. Ho hum
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_Karting_Paris_Bercy
I remember those kart racers. There was a real mix of winners, surprises too. Park the ego's and lay it all on the line. Wasn't Lewis bloody good in karts?
That insiders blog is a great read. A real insight into all the shady goings on behind the scenes! 🙂
That karting thing used to be an annual thing at Bercy, sure they had Senna Vs Prost one year. Nearest thing now is the Race Of Champions, good idea but not as good - suspect there may have been ego issues involved in getting all the top folks in identical machinery, nowhere to hide out there if you don't win... 🙂
Looks like Hamilton will be starting from 6th on the grid at best in Shanghai
http://www.pitpass.com/55864/Grid-penalty-for-Hamilton
Do we think he'll aim for 4th (behind Roberg & Ferrari's) and end up 9th with free tyre choice?
That means Rosberg stands a good chance of getting another win in a row, wont that be a record number in a row ?