The F1 thread.

Well feel free to discss everything F1 related. From GP results to grid babes and from driving styles to champagne brands.

Where to start?

I've been an F1 fan all my life. I fell out with it a few times, but always came back, and devoured all the stuff I'd missed. I couldn't stand the 'win at any cost' attitude that Prost and Senna brought to the sport, and I loathe and hated the way it was turned into the whole motto of Schumacher's career.

Certainly, a driver cannot be judged solely on the number of championships he has won. The most important factor is how they were won. Was Prost genuinely the winner of the 1989 World Championship? Was Schumacher in 1994? It's open to debate. For me, they were farcical - no driver should be able to look at himself in the mirror to win anything like that.

Team orders? Well, there it all depends. Again, it was something that worked fine until recent years, when teams - and drivers - started using it in a way that went against the spirit of the sport.

Greatest Driver Ever? For me, Jim Clark, without question. A true racer, a complete gentleman, and a unique and amazing talent.

Well I'm following F1 for the last 3 years or so. I have to say that while 2010 was one of the very best years and it's not me that says that, but the a lot of people that are involved in the sport, 2011 was a rather big dissapointment.
I mean DRS? Come on! That's not what F1 is all about. They said that it'd give more overtaking chances to the drivers. I say change the track layouts! How's a man supposed to overtake in Monaco? We saw one or two overtakes in Saint-Devote and that was it. That was DRS's contribution to the hardest to overtake circuit in the calendar.

In Montreal, Spa or Monza DRS is useless. There are a bunch of overtaking spots without it. It just makes it to easy in circuits like that.

Let the drivers race without electronic...things.

As for the greatest driver ever I think I'll go with Sir Jackie Stewart although I haven't run all past drivers.

Aris wrote:

How's a man supposed to overtake in Monaco?

Watch Graham Hill. Or Aytron Senna in 1984.

Class.

Yup. A fantastic drive. And in the wet.

Oh yes - Jackie Stewart : three world championships in 99 races. Never started his 100th, due to the sad death of Francois Cevert. :(

This thread needs Shadowonthesun/ Captain Tightpants.

Do you want him delivered?

Express delivery?

In the diplomatic bag.

Surely you mean pouch? ;)

Whose pouch? Do I look like a female kangaroo?

Not from this angle. But I have a cold.

If I have to nail my colours to the sticking post, I have to admit straight off that I do not rate Schumacher at all. I maintain he could have won around two titles on his own merit - I do not say he is talentless. But I do question the majority of his championships based on bad sportsmanship and flat-out cheating.

I'm ok with team orders as long as they don't switch the order of the cars to decide a race winner. eg two front running McLarens swap places so the other can win. Don't do that! -Ever! On the other had, I don't mind a don't-pass-your-teammate order, if the two cars are running 1 and 2.

What I like about F1 is the tech. The fact that it's not a spec series. Indy Car has become a spec series. Indy Car was way better in the '80s and '90s before the split. Penske made his own chassis, while the other teams shared maybe two other chassis. So its not quite F1, but at least teams could be grouped by chassis/engine combos. There were maybe two engine suppliers. There was a time when you had to have a Chevrolet engine to be competitive and Ilmor only awarded the engine to teams it deigned worthy. You had to earn that engine. It wasn't only about cash. Ilmor insisted on a quality organization.

Now, even if not quite a spec series, teams all drive the same chassis/engine combo, bascially because the series has no money. The better financed teams still dominate and make better use of the equipment provided but I would really like to see a return to the old engine and chassis wars.

As for F1, I root for Ferrari! Always! No exceptions.

Ravenstone wrote:

Aris wrote:

How's a man supposed to overtake in Monaco?

Watch Graham Hill. Or Aytron Senna in 1984.

Schumacher on Wurz round Portier. Stunning and steel-balls brave.



My point is that it's the most difficult track for an overtake maneuver and with being so caucious these days it's very unlikely to see one.

Oh I hate Ferrari. Always have. If I was in charge of F1 and they carried on playing up, I'd tell 'em to race as Fiat or not at all ;)

I miss Ken Tyrrell. And Colin Chapman. Them were the days. I love that Lotus are back.

Team orders are only acceptable when a championship is in the offing, and then only if it's not between the two team mates. Not deliberately deciding in advance who will do what. Drivers have given the win to other drivers for numerous reasons over the years - sometimes just to be nice. But if you're going to put two drivers on the grid, and there's no championship to fight about, then let them race. None of this pansy "Oh we'll look stupid if they take each other off". Because what they're saying there is that their drivers are so incompetent that they a) can't make an overtaking manoeuvre properly; and b) can't drive defensively without turning the wheel more than once. It's pathetic.

Nah, I'd say team orders are perfectly civilized. When drivers are running one-two at the front, then IMO, the guy in front gets the win. Only time you let them race, is if there is a championship on the line between the two, and even then I don't recommend that, as they could still take each other out. Now mind you if the team is so dominant, that the pair find themselves at the front a lot, then I guess you got to let them race, and hold your breath, but ideally no. If you can get both cars to the front, let them settle in and cruise home, and have a good time on the podium.

If the pair are running further back, and the faster-car on that day is trying to overtake, I'd order a move-over. He's going to get by anyway at some point, and as a team, you do want your faster car challenging the others.



Michael Shumacher was my favourite driver when he raced for Ferrari. Greatest Ferrari driver though, in my totally biased opionion, was the late great Gilles Villeneuve, Canada's all time greatest racer (with deference to the son, who also should have found a way to race for Ferrari).

No one could get a car sideways like Giles Villeneuvre :(

Ravenstone wrote:

Where to start?
I've been an F1 fan all my life. I fell out with it a few times, but always came back, and devoured all the stuff I'd missed.

I used to love Grand Prix racing… until I actually saw it (we didn't used to get any coverage here in backwater NZ when I was a kid, so I enjoyed it via the romance of the written word, which managed to make it sound far more exiting than it actually was)
then I lied to myself for a number of years before finally admitting to myself that yes, there was no getting away from the fact that it was tediously boring viewing
99 times out of 100 the actual race for the victory is a complete forgone conclusion, this year being particularly so
the artificially of the pit stop years just made it more of a joke
NASCAR, despite the tired old "driving in circles" accusations, was far more interesting (also the British Touring Car series)
however I still retain some interest in it, I've gone back to following the colourful technical aspects and politics via written media

Ravenstone wrote:

I couldn't stand the 'win at any cost' attitude that Prost and Senna brought to the sport, and I loathe and hated the way it was turned into the whole motto of Schumacher's career.
Certainly, a driver cannot be judged solely on the number of championships he has won. The most important factor is how they were won. Was Prost genuinely the winner of the 1989 World Championship? Was Schumacher in 1994? It's open to debate. For me, they were farcical - no driver should be able to look at himself in the mirror to win anything like that.

that seems to be the nature of modern professional sport, all the personality gets sucked out of it and it becomes very dry and calculating
the drivers all seem to have been predestined since childhood and know nothing of life outside of a race track, unlike the colourful menagerie that made their way to the top through until about the 80's

Ravenstone wrote:

Team orders? Well, there it all depends. Again, it was something that worked fine until recent years, when teams - and drivers - started using it in a way that went against the spirit of the sport.

sorry to disillusion you but team orders have been around since the beginning of motor racing and were miss used just as much
for example, back in the 50s, when Fangio's car broke down Peter Collins was asked to come in and give him his car, because he was the team number one

Ravenstone wrote:

Greatest Driver Ever? For me, Jim Clark, without question. A true racer, a complete gentleman, and a unique and amazing talent.

my father is Scottish and he loves Jim Clark, so he is also a favourite of mine and raced for my favourite team - Lotus
however after reading up my history I find myself admiring Tazio Nuvolari very much, his victory over the Mercedes and Auto Union hordes at the Nurbergring driving an out of date Alpha Romeo in the 30s is the greatest Grandprix victory of all time IMO, even surpassing Fangio's legendary win at the same track in a Lancia over Ferrari
I also have a soft spot for the handful of Kiwi's who made their way to the top in the 60s, Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulme and Chris Amon, but every era has a driver you prefer over the others at the time
these days I tend to prefer the ones who have a bit more of a colourful personality

Aris wrote:

Well I'm following F1 for the last 3 years or so. I have to say that while 2010 was one of the very best years and it's not me that says that, but the a lot of people that are involved in the sport, 2011 was a rather big disappointment.
I mean DRS? Come on! That's not what F1 is all about. They said that it'd give more overtaking chances to the drivers. I say change the track layouts! How's a man supposed to overtake in Monaco? We saw one or two overtakes in Saint-Devote and that was it. That was DRS's contribution to the hardest to overtake circuit in the calendar.
In Montreal, Spa or Monza DRS is useless. There are a bunch of overtaking spots without it. It just makes it to easy in circuits like that.
Let the drivers race without electronic...things.

Right On The Money!
surely that should be self evident and yet every year they seem to unveil a new track somewhere in the world, the teams arrive and find, oh dear the twits who designed it haven't managed to engineer any overtaking spots!
(however I don’t blame Monaco, which is an important historical track which can't be altered because of it's nature, if you want overtaking at Monaco you'll have to change the cars, or only run the race in the rain, which has the same effect, neutralising of the technology)

Aris wrote:

As for the greatest driver ever I think I'll go with Sir Jackie Stewart although I haven't run all past drivers.

he was a great driver too and was also particularly impressive in the wet, the litmus test of the greatest drivers, one that Prost failed and Senna passed

Ravenstone wrote:

If I have to nail my colours to the sticking post, I have to admit straight off that I do not rate Schumacher at all. I maintain he could have won around two titles on his own merit - I do not say he is talentless. But I do question the majority of his championships based on bad sportsmanship and flat-out cheating.

I think your being a bit harsh, he had to have the car to set records, so he's not better than any other driver who has dominated an "era", but I think he deserves to be respected as the best of his day
who do you think was faster during his time at the top?

tiffanywint wrote:

I'm ok with team orders as long as they don't switch the order of the cars to decide a race winner. eg two front running McLarens swap places so the other can win. Don't do that! -Ever! On the other had, I don't mind a don't-pass-your-teammate order, if the two cars are running 1 and 2.

Ravenstone wrote:

Team orders are only acceptable when a championship is in the offing, and then only if it's not between the two team mates. Not deliberately deciding in advance who will do what. Drivers have given the win to other drivers for numerous reasons over the years - sometimes just to be nice. But if you're going to put two drivers on the grid, and there's no championship to fight about, then let them race. None of this pansy "Oh we'll look stupid if they take each other off". Because what they're saying there is that their drivers are so incompetent that they a) can't make an overtaking manoeuvre properly; and b) can't drive defensively without turning the wheel more than once. It's pathetic.

I agree, "hold position" is as far as it should go, but they are a "team" after all

tiffanywint wrote:

What I like about F1 is the tech.

I agree, although once it becomes clear that "the tech" is never going to have any practical application to road cars it should be dropped
by which IO mean get rid of the wings, wings have been around since the late 60s and road cars still don't have them, so they are a dead end, get rid of them
ditto wide tires, thinner tyres means more emphasis of the driver, less on the car, bring back drifting to Grand Prix racing!!!

tiffanywint wrote:

As for F1, I root for Ferrari! Always! No exceptions.

Ravenstone wrote:

Oh I hate Ferrari. Always have. If I was in charge of F1 and they carried on playing up, I'd tell 'me to race as Fiat or not at all ;)
I miss Ken Tyrrell. And Colin Chapman. Them were the days. I love that Lotus are back.

sadly the genius Colin Chapman is dead, Lotus will never be back, move on, make your own name and place in history I say
like you I'll support one team for a while, then I'll get sick of them and want to see someone different winning
mainly I hate procession, I want to see several teams and drivers battling for the title (like 2010)

Lewis Hamilton said in one interview that he thought the World Championship was devalued when so many different people won it. He thought it meant more when the same person kept winning. I hate to disillusion the sod, but there's not many double champions, never mind triple.

I like the tech, but I prefer the character. These are meant to be the most talented drivers in the world. So why do they need driver aids? It was more fun when they could drive different formulas, instead of being rather prima donna-ish and only being allowed to race F1.

Oh - and team orders? Yes, they have been around since the start. And the incident to which you refer - the 1956 championship and Fangio's fourth title - was the final race of the season to decide the championship. And, as I said, team orders are acceptable when it's to decide the championship. Mind you, it wasn't team orders - Collins pulled over and gave Fangio his car when Fangio's steering failed. So not quite the same as dictating that the number one driver always finishes ahead of the number two driver.

It's quite amusing listening to the coded messages on the radio these days. Requests to "confirm you understand the message". Yeah, right. And his foot miraculously slips off the throttle.....

Ravenstone wrote:

Oh - and team orders? Yes, they have been around since the start. And the incident to which you refer - the 1956 championship and Fangio's fourth title - was the final race of the season to decide the championship. And, as I said, team orders are acceptable when it's to decide the championship. Mind you, it wasn't team orders - Collins pulled over and gave Fangio his car when Fangio's steering failed. So not quite the same as dictating that the number one driver always finishes ahead of the number two driver.

The Tragedy Of Team Orders…

Race One, Argentina Grand Prix = Fangio was a non factor with a faulty fuel pump. He took over Musso’s car on lap 29 and re-entered in fifth place. Fangio quickly passed Behra but lost his position after spinning. From laps 40-43 disaster struck the leaders. While third Castellotti’s gearbox broke, Menditguy left the lead with a broken driveshaft, and new leader Moss’ engine began to smoke. Fangio, who had gotten by Behra, passed the ailing Moss on lap 66 and finished unchallenged after Behra spun late. The race was not without controversy when the Maserati team manager lodged a protest that Fangio was push-started after the earlier spin.

Race Two, Monaco Grand Prix = On lap 54 while second, Collins came in the pit and turned his car over to Fangio, who resumed in third and passed Behra for second on lap 70 but he was 47 seconds behind Moss.

Race Six, British Grand Prix = Alfonso de Portago (70 laps) came into the pits and turned his car over to Peter Collins (30 laps). They shared the 6 points for second place.

Race Eight, Italian Grand Prix = Going into the final race of the season, Fangio had an eight-point lead over Collins and the consistent Jean Behra, driving for Maserati. The only way he could lose the title would be to score no points with Collins winning and setting fastest lap. Fangio retired, and with Musso unwilling to share his car with Fangio, Collins had a great chance of winning his first title. Collins, in a remarkable act of sportsmanship, instead chose to hand his car over to Fangio to allow the Argentine to finish second in the race and win his third title in a row.

Juan Manuel Fangio = 0 (4) +1 / 0 (4) +1 / 0 / 0 / 3 +1 / 8 / 8 +1 / 0 (3) = 23 (34) (Best 5 = 31)
Peter Collins = 0 / 6? (3) / 0 / 8 / 8 / 0 (3) / 0 / 6? (3) = 28? (25) (Best 5 = 25)

Yes. So team orders, or driver's choices, have always influenced races. But there does come a point where it is detrimental to the sport, which would include Eddie Irvine and Barrichello's time at Ferrari. Barrichello certainly wasn't happy allowing himself to be passed all the time. And Mark Webber's comments about, "Not bad for a second driver" certainly sounded rather barbed.

Ravenstone wrote:

Yes. So team orders, or driver's choices, have always influenced races. But there does come a point where it is detrimental to the sport, which would include Eddie Irvine and Barrichello's time at Ferrari. Barrichello certainly wasn't happy allowing himself to be passed all the time. And Mark Webber's comments about, "Not bad for a second driver" certainly sounded rather barbed.

Peter Collins will always be the rightful champion of 1956 in my book

Mark Webber doesn't seem to be consistently good on all circuits, but he is one of many drivers who have felt disadvantaged by internal team politics over the years (Nigel Mansell at Williams, Watson by Lauda, Lauda by Prost, Prost by Senna at McLaren)

everyone felt Ronny Peterson was faster the Mario Andretti at Lotus, Gille Villeneuve was faster than Jody Schecter... the list goes on

to find the best driver you would need to have a one marque series, but Formual One will always been primarily about the cars

Agreed. Sometimes, you can watch a race where someone drives a complete dream of a race - and yet they don't win the championship. But on that day, they're the best driver. So while World Championships are important, I sometimes think that a little bit too much importance could be placed on them. In a way. Somehow. I mean, a lot is luck. But then, it takes a lot of talent to be lucky.

I do hope I'm making a smidgen of sense there ;)

Jensen Button's drive at Canada this year was absolutely fantastic, I thought. He came from last on the grid, had the most pit stops, and yet won the race. I thought that was brilliant.

And although this is an F1 thread - I feel the need to mention Simoncelli, and express my deep regret at his sad death. Such a loss to the sport. And such an horrendous accident. My heart goes out to Colin Edwards and Valentino Rossi as well.

Ravenstone wrote:

Agreed. Sometimes, you can watch a race where someone drives a complete dream of a race - and yet they don't win the championship. But on that day, they're the best driver. So while World Championships are important, I sometimes think that a little bit too much importance could be placed on them. In a way. Somehow. I mean, a lot is luck. But then, it takes a lot of talent to be lucky.

I do hope I'm making a smidgen of sense there ;)

Jensen Button's drive at Canada this year was absolutely fantastic, I thought. He came from last on the grid, had the most pit stops, and yet won the race. I thought that was brilliant.

looking at the wins he's had in the last couple of seasons, since he won the title, Jensen seems to be the master tactician whenever track conditions are less than ideal

while the others seem unable to read or adapt to changing circumstances, showing a lack of maturity?

none of the current leading drivers has shown the delicate mastery of damp conditions which marked out the likes of Stewart, Senna and even the much maligned Schumacher, as drivers of a higher order