| Author | Message | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2230 Registered: 10-2002 |
Spot on: 94 could have been so good. That's the biggest loss (apart from loosing a human being), that we fans got 'cheated' out of the battle between Schumacher and Senna. It could have been so good. Eventually Senna's bad luck would have stopped and he would have fought back. Nonetheless 94 turned out to be a very unusual year nevertheless. I read Steve Matchett's book and it nicely describes what happened that year from his perspective (although I still don't buy all of it, I still think Benetton was cheating with the refuel hose). So let's be happy and thankful, that we currently have the best (MS) duking it out against other greats (JPM) or potential greats (Kimi, Alonso). Not quite the battle Senna would have given him, but still pretty good. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 958 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes the cycle repeats ... I have read Senna's biography, Mansell's, Prost's, Graham Hill's, Lauda's, etc. and have a couple of MS books, oops I almost forgot and Irvine's. I find this type of book very interesting. As you say it is very interesting reading about what makes these guys tick ... and the ego is a big part of it. As we all know mind games play a big part in motorracing. Pete ps: '94 should have been the best year of F1 in the modern era ... unfortunately fate played its part  | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2226 Registered: 10-2002 |
PSK, exactly right your points about the ego. I strongly recommend (unless you have already done so) to read the bios of Senna and MS. I got them for little change, was semi interested and after a few pages blown away: Deep perspective into their heads. And that ego thing and the fear of the younger driver and the younger driver who has to make his stand and shows no respect, that's all there. For both of them. Now of course the table's turned and MS is on the receiving end. I remember going into 94 rooting for MS. Not so much because I was a big fan, but just because he was the underdog. Less experienced, young and in a 'lousy' car vs the multiple champ in the unbeatable Williams. It looked so much like David vs Goliath and all of a sudden Goliath didn't look so good anymore. Watching Alonso taking poles and a victory against the mighty penta champion in the unbeatable Ferrari brings back all these memories. Going even deeper back I remember a young Brazilian showing his might in a Toleman in the rain of Monaco to an already settled Prost. And even further back I remember a very young Alain in a Mc Laren driving flat out and making an old pro like Lauda look even older. History repeats itself, the wheels keep on turning. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 956 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas, Yes you are right ofcourse ... I hope that the general public will remember all the things you pointed out. It is amazing to me how non-motorracing people I know, already have the incorrect view that MS took the easy way out and went to the all conquering Ferrari team  ... I very much rate MS and enjoy watching the vintage MS when he is really pushing ... and yes I personally think his ability had a lot to do with Senna's accident. Remember Senna spun trying to catch MS at Interlagos, and while the Williams did come good it must have been hard for Senna's ego moving to the all conquering team and then being blown away by the new boy. Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2225 Registered: 10-2002 |
PSK, it would have been better for MS' record if he actually had somebody to race against. True. But looking closely he did have that person: He pressured Senna tremendously in 94. To the point, that Senna accepted (knowingly?) a faulty Williams, where the steering just had been 'fixed'. De mortibus nihil nisi bene, but Senna did look awfully outclassed in the first few races of 94. Also MS had Mika as a strong competitor. I never was much of a fan of Mika, but he got his game together just as the Mc Laren was top and boy was that guy fast. Mika was no Senna, but freakin' fast and had some great car control (Spa on semi wet conditions come to mind). So it wasn't just a walk in the park for MS. On top of all that, he brought Ferrari back from the dead. Not even Prost or Mansell managed that. Senna might have. Who knows. Aside from that I think just as MS was the new generation to Senna/Prost/Mansell, we know have in Kimi and Alonso the new breed who will eventually send MS into retirement. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 954 Registered: 11-2002 |
This is such an interesting subject, ie. comparing drivers from different eras. The difficulty I think is comparing their competition. Fangio did race against some greats Ascari, Moss and probably a few others BUT the rest were rich young man who found their way into motorsport. Remember motorracing was a rich boys/girls past-time in those days (er, still is) but you know what I mean. Look at Hawthorn, Peter Collins, etc. young play boys. MS's career will be marred by the fact that nobody rates his opposition ... like Doohean in bikes. This is what makes Prost and Senna look so good because we had 2 greats (with Mansell adding to the equation when he was good) fight it out. Personally this is what makes Prost's records stand out so much ... he won all those GP's and accumlated all those points, while Senna was racing!. Somewhere they redid the points per year (in the Motorsport Mag) based on some old system ... and Prost ended up with 5 or 6 championships and Senna only 1 ... interesting! Otherwise as you guys have stated all we can compare by is %'s Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2218 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jim, percentages are probably the best way to go. However wasn't there once a driver who won his first GP? Had he quit after that, he would have been unbeatable for all times. But yes, percentages are more telling then points. | ||
| Jim Avery (Boxer12)
Junior Member Username: Boxer12 Post Number: 235 Registered: 6-2003 |
"The second thing noteworthy about Fangio�s record is he won 47 percent of the 51 races he entered and finished no worse than fourth in 80 percent, or 41 of them. The Italian Grand Prix on Sept. 14 was Schumacher�s 191st F1 start, and he is only 34. He has won 36 percent of those races, but even more telling about his brilliance is that he has come home sixth or better in 74 percent of them, or 142 times." | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2211 Registered: 10-2002 |
Not trying to jump into the points discussion per se, but just my personal $ 0.02 about it: The thing that bothers me most are the (IMHO useless) statistics about a driver like MS having earned so many points, or the most points overall or per season etc. What is always left unsaid is, that the number of races per season and counting for points changed over the years and that the points system itself changed over the years. I would love to see a final statistic that compares all drivers of all years with one point system. BTW: I once started recalculating the early races from the fifties and sixties using last year's point system and in at least one case it created a different world champion! So messing with the points does alter the results. IMHO the most pathetic rule was in 79 when you could only count so many points per half season. That in essence prevented Alan Jones from clinching the title a year earlier. Stupid. | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 284 Registered: 3-2003 |
PSK, Maybe I was up too late. The point about subracting the unearned points races was flawed, you're right. But if you think F1 is about winning races, I don't know where this comes from. As the numbers show, its about earning points. It was last year and it is this year. Using last year's process they are separated by one second place finish. Using the current process they are separated by a 6th place finish. There isn't a drastic difference between the two, which was what I was trying to convey. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 951 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andy that is the quite amusing and is completely floored logic. With last years points he would have had a 6 points gap while instead this year he has ONLY got 3 points gap ... how can that be favouritising MS. Why does everybody keep on saying it is luck of favouritisim that makes MS look like a winner ??? In the end MS has lost a total of (6 x 4) - (6 x 2) = 12 point gap, thanks to 6 wins. It is not the total number of points that matters it is how many more per race you gain over the other guy ... thus for those 6 race that MS won, the 2nd place guys got 6 x 2 more points than they should have. I guess somebody will cleverly explain how that favoured MS somehow In the end the new point system simply helps out the mediorce performers ... Pete | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 278 Registered: 3-2003 |
Some seem to think the points system is driving the results this year. I don't think so. Try tallying up this year's results using last year's points system. Here is the result after Monza. '02 '03 67 82 Schumie 61 79 JPM 55 75 Kimi As you can see, The difference between the two would have been 6 points if they had not changed the points method this year versus 3 points as it is now. That's only a 3 point difference. Another interesting point is clear when you back out the races where points were scored this year but under last year's method no points would have been earned. That's Germany and Hungary for MS and San Marino for JPM. The difference between the two narrows to only 2 points after Monza. So IMO this year's points system has favored MS more than you might think. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 949 Registered: 11-2002 |
Maybe we should just run handicap races so they will all theoretically finish together ... Come on guys get real. This is not about making the spectator have a great day, it is about racing to prove who is the fastest. If you find it boring turn off F1!!! This is what really pees me with (especially American TV audience bought up on TV show racing) spectators is that they think everything exists for them. Well I'm sorry some things like the Olympics and pure motor racing DON'T give a flying F**k about the spectator and NOR should they. Please take the money and business out of F1 and return it to the manufacturers and drivers trying to prove who is the best. This commercialisation is f**king the last decent racing series the real motorracing enthusiasts have to watch. When is this sh!t going to happen to the Olympics too, when are we going to hang weights (for example) on the fast swimmers so the pathetic bored audience have a better (in their one eyed opinion) show. Guys you disappoint me, I thought you were racing enthusiasts in the purest form. What is wrong with MS and Ferrari actually being allowed to prove that they are doing the best job. What is wrong with them lapping the entire field 10 times in each race. All this will cause is the teams and drivers that have balls will STEP UP and improve their came. Playing with the puriety just lowers the quality of the sport and that is why we now have a bunch of useless drivers (except MS and maybe Rakinen) and why nobody can raise they came to compete. Lets face it Coulthard should never ever have made F1 as for most of the others. Lets also face it that Jordon and Minardi and Jaguar should also not be there ... although Jaguar is atleast trying to raise their game. Come on don't lower the goal posts, kick the weak up the arse ... ie. look at Michelin, they picked up their game this year ... and their lack of performance allowed Ferrari to run away with the WC last year, not because the rules sucked, not because we cannot have pure sport anymore ... simply Michelin were below par. Natural evolution and competitive spirit has solved that and they are now competitive. This post makes me so disallusioned that so called informed F1 fans, want to ruin yet another real sport for f**ken money and TV. Are children going to be born into a world soon where there is no idea of competition, where we have no sport, because it is all just a fake TV show event (like WC Wrestling) ... is my son not going to have the advantage of improving himself as a person as he goes up through the ranks of children's sports, thanks to the complete lack of motivation that the removal of the core values of sport provide. I loved that chance to compete myself and all it did was make me a better person ... and if a spectator did not enjoy watching my soccer and tennis playing and in latter years my motorracing, I could not give a F**K. I was out their playing and racing to win and doing my best not to make a show for them. Please never ever apply for a job running any sporting competitions ... but you guys would make greate TV show directors. Pete | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
Intermediate Member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 1063 Registered: 4-2002 |
You could always do a motocross start, with every car positioned equidistant from the first corner. It would be exciting! Alternately, for tracks like Monza, you coud run the first lap without the chicanes! | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2193 Registered: 10-2002 |
Reversed grid would create potentially risky situations at the start. At least in the beginning until the Minardis have figured out what it means to lead the field into the first turn. We saw some of that in Sepang this year and in Hockenheim and Zeltweg last year. Yes, the potential risk is there. But I bet they'd get used to it and better at the starts as time progresses. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 103 Registered: 6-2003 |
Andreas, remember the fiasco in the WRC when the lead drivers (Sainz was one) didn't want to start first so they did a go slow. I think a reverse grid would do wierd things to qualifying. Look at the regs regarding starting from the back, when Alonso did it at Monza everyone wondered whether he should start from the pits so Renault could work on the car before the race. I am sure that's not in the spirit of the rules as they were written. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2189 Registered: 10-2002 |
Yes, you loose qualifying and would make that hour into an additional practice session. Yes, you deny the spectators on site a great show. That's about all you loose. But let's face it: Nobody in F1 gives a damn about the local spectators, it is all about TV rights and the TV audience. And qualifying seeing on live TV is not that great: Remember how they all pathetically waited 55 minutes with only Minardi cleaning the track? Then in the last 5 minutes they all went out at the same time and of course on TV they only focused on the top six. You never got to see the entire field as we do now (obviously not true for the local spectators). To me qualifying on TV was never great because of that last minute mess and scramble. I wouldn't miss it too much knowing that I get 'paid back' by some terrific passing in the race. James, I'm not even sure they would have to change the aerodynamics. Rubens did a fine job in Silverstone with the cars as they are. That's the beauty of reversed grid: You don't need to change a single other thing, no rules changes, no car or engine changes, no track changes. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 947 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes Steve, Get rid of the required pitstops ... all they do is stop the racing taking place on the track, ie. why attempt to pass when you expect the guy in front to pit soon. I'm still not a fan of a reverse grid ... as why bother qualifying at all. When I went to the 2 GP's that I have seen live the practise and qualifying were far better than the actual racing ... so you would be denying the spectators the best show, ie. when the drivers are really on it (obviously this was before the f**ked qualifying in to this 1 lap sponsor displaying thingy). Pete | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 101 Registered: 6-2003 |
Andreas, they gotta do something about the aerodynamics and smooth air being so crucial. The following driver sits back too far instead of getting right on their tail where it would be easier to pounce. Still think the cure to the tyres debacle is to have only one manufacturer making the same 10 different compounds for everybody. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2176 Registered: 10-2002 |
Monaco is an issue with the reversed grid, I agree. However there was the Lauda/Watson race way back showed, that even in Monaco you can clean up the grid from behind. | ||
| Steve B (Sjb509)
New member Username: Sjb509 Post Number: 25 Registered: 6-2003 |
The idea of reversing the grid is interesting, but at places like Monaco it would be very difficult and dangerous because passing is so hard. Most of the passing of cars on the actual track is a blue-flag situation, and even then it is difficult. If "purity of sport" is the objective and not marketablility, then get rid of required pit stops, keep the qualifying rules as they were in 2002, and most importantly fix the rules for equipment for the entire year NO MATTER WHAT. If a team comes up with a novel idea that gives an advantage and is legal, don't change the rules mid-year when it is obvious they will win easily. This leads to my last point: if Ferrari couldn't win because of Bridgestone tires, that is between Bridgestone and Ferrari to work out, not changing the rules about post-race inspection when Michelin had an advantage. | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2161 Registered: 10-2002 |
Thanks Robert, my opinion as well. One for the books. PSK, glad you got my point. Well most of it: I am 100% with you, that stopping the winner is ludicrous. That's not my intent with reversed grid. The purpose of that is to make them struggle and pass through the field. I have no doubt, that (not counting an accident) the top runners would continue to win the races, but they would have to work harder for it and give us some spectacular passing. I would assume, that plowing through the field would probably take them at least to the midway point of a race. The second half would be spent duking it out amongst themselves. Seriously, you only need to reverse the grid to make F1 top again. No other rule changes necessary. No slicks, no track modifications, nothing. Just that. | ||
| Robert Faber (F129b)
New member Username: F129b Post Number: 48 Registered: 8-2003 |
This year's British GP showed tremendous battling throughout the field for the entirety of the race. While I was riveted by Monza, Silverstone was truly spectacular. F1 Silverstone 2003 was the antithesis of roundy-round NASCAR/IRL junk, and epitomized the reasons I find F1 so spectacular! | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 944 Registered: 11-2002 |
Yes can see your point but those days are gone ... thanks to too much money involved, ie. to much risk, and no real drivers ending up in F1 anymore. Instead we have drivers that major in PR skills and racing comes second. As for:
F1 is contrived enough, no thanks. As soon as F1 lowers itself to forcing the racing to be 'entertaining' then we will loose the last and ONLY real racing that actually occurs. That is the beauty of F1, it is pure (or was). I will never watch F1 if the best car and driver combination do not win ... and we are very close to that this year. We have plenty of crap racing series where they hold back teams that do well to keep the racing close ... what a load of sh!t. If you cannot win by merit and ability what are you winning ... nothing!, just embarrassing yourself and your team. NASCAR is crap because of this, ie. Chev build a better car and start winning and then they have to be slowed!! F**k that, if I was Chev (or Ford) I would pull out and tell NASCAR to get F**ked, after all their engineers have worked hard and made a better car ... and they do not get the advertising advantage of winning!@!! Just stupid. Same crap happens with Australian v8 Supercars ... in the end you end up with follow the leader racing because nobody can pass because all the cars are too even ... thus smashing and crashing occurs ... which the low intellect spectator thinks is a hoot, but motorracing in the end looses. Maybe motorracing has already lost its purity , remember it is not just for the spectator ... ie. Olympics is not just for the spectator either, it is about winning and proving yourself better than the other competitor! Pete | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2150 Registered: 10-2002 |
PSK, you know I'm no fan of oval racing, NASCAR and all that stuff. But I still expected a lot more from the Monza battle of the titans. To be honest (do I start to sound like Schumi, oops) I had a halfway sleepless night before the race, that's how excited and full of anticipation I was. I was hoping for Arnoux vs Villeneuve in Dijon, for Hakkinen vs Schumi in Spa, for JPM vs Kimi in Hockenheim. Nothing of that. One lap of drama, then it was all set in stone. Artificially hyped up drama by the commentators about the brakes (c'mon, they didn't crack in Montreal and they were not here either). Only with the second set of tires JPM had a brief chance on catching Schumacher, but never was he in a position to ever pass (as he admitted himself in the post race interview). Yes, I was nervous about the Ferrari breaking down or Schumacher making a mistake (or Gene doing a Jean Louis Schlesser on him, remember Senna in Monza?). But if you like at the race in hindsight, it was all but over after lap one. What do I want from F1? REVERSED GRID! Skip qualifying and set the grid reversed to their WC standings. What will you get? An entire season of races like Silverstone where the Schumachers, Montoyas and Raikkonens of this world have to battle all their way to the front. That's what I want. Not oval racing. Not follow the leader. On a related note: RAI TV didn't help either. Of course they would be glued to the red car. But there actually was real racing going on (not that the Schumi vs JPM battle wasn't racing, it just didn't look like it): Alonso coming from basically dead last driving through the field into the points. Another stunning result and it would have been great to see more of that. PS: Yes I love F1 and yes I love Ferrari, but Monza IMHO wasn't a great race. But I'm quite certain the next two battles will be just that, real battles. | ||
| Frederick Thomas (Fred)
Member Username: Fred Post Number: 805 Registered: 2-2001 |
I thought the battle between Schumacher and Montoya was a great one. At one point I thought for sure Montoya was going to catch him. I enjoy watching a driver have to work really hard for a pass and like to see the guy behind pressure the guy ahead into a mistake. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Member Username: Beast Post Number: 339 Registered: 5-2003 |
Pete; I really and honestly doubt you will ever see a race where the drivers are going wheel to wheel the entire race. I raced motocross at the pro level and i have found that sooner or latter one of the riders will back off thinking that not beating the other person is better for the championship points than risking crashing out, or worse yet missing several races due to injury. It may sound strange that a rider will think about this during a race but it does happen. If i knew enough about my competition i would back off and pace myself if i knew the rider would slow down due to fatigue, then charge towards the end of the race. Now if it came down to a tight points race i myself would not hesitate placing an aggressive move if i knew that eliminating my competition would result in a championship. On the other hand if i was behind in points i would ride carefully when i was near my competiton to eliminate my chances of being taken out. To be honest i have won chapionships both ways at the final race. The thing i am trying to stress is it is better to fight at the next race by racing smart than doing something stupid and risk missing a race. racing is more mental that most people seem to understand. For example showing a wheel to a driver 3 laps in a row at the same place will make that driver relax there driving at othe areas on the track allowing you to make the suprise move at an other point on the track. Rob | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 6310 Registered: 12-2000 |
I hear you Pete, it's just different. It's like soccer vs. basketball. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 940 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andreas and Rob,
Hmmm, it was not just follow the leader it was pressure driving with MS and Montoya giving it their all. In the end MS only had to faulter enough to get Montoya into the slip stream and he would have lost the race. Same with the pit stops. In the end this is what F1 is about, not random passing because the drivers are of low skill or the cars are exactly the same. It is not actually about passing at all, but the potential of passes ... and we had that every single lap just about at Monza. Again like I said if MS made a mistake Montoya would have been right on him ... or if those wing changes to Montoya's car had made a little bit more improvement ... Yes passes are good but random passes like in motorcycle racing is not exciting to me, but a drawn out battle like the first 2/3rds of the Monza race is what it is all about. 2 drivers giving it their all, and at Monza passing is real easy so it was always on! Yes passing is good, but not if they just pass and then the battle is over as the faster car drives away into the distance ... far better if they are even in pace and whether they pass or NOT, they are right there battling. That's my opinion anyway, and I used to love race long battles at my humble club racing level In the end Andreas and Rob, I'm not sure what you guys need to make racing exciting if you were not tense watching that race ... praying that MS did not drop the ball, or the Ferrari faultered. Pete | ||
| Frank Wiedmann (Frankieferrari)
Member Username: Frankieferrari Post Number: 285 Registered: 8-2003 |
All I can say,is that it was REALLY nice to see all that RED up on the podium,yesterday (Sunday). But,Ferrari has got to be consistant and get more RED up on that podium,if they want to get the constructors! Keep our fingers crossed! | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2139 Registered: 10-2002 |
Arthur, I'm most afraid, that the crash between JPM and MS will happen in Suzuka effectively giving Michael the title (remember Hill and Villeneuve?). That would be a shame. I hope he'll win it fair and square. Just like he did yesterday. PSK, glad you enjoyed the race. Honestly I thought it was a bore. If it hadn't been for the situation with the titlepoints at hand, there was nothing going on past the second lap. Follow the leader, just at a higher average speed. | ||
| Rob Lay (Rob328gts)
Board Administrator Username: Rob328gts Post Number: 6291 Registered: 12-2000 |
OK, I still love watching F1, but I ended up working on the computer more than half the time. When Trans Am or World Challenge is on I won't even take a bathroom break, at commercial even! | ||
| arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member Username: Art355 Post Number: 2584 Registered: 6-2001 |
There is a 3 point difference between Montoya and Schumacher. Anybody want to bet on a crash between the two at Indy? I think this last race will be great. If there is anyway I can go, I will. I'm in trial now, with it scheduled to last until then, but we'll see. Art | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 936 Registered: 11-2002 |
James,
Not according to the Toyota race engineers that actually said that the narrower Michelins worked better. In the end who do we believe I actually think this win was the result of all the testing that Ferrari and Bridgestone did, and at last they pulled their finger out of their arse Anyway, a win is a win, and yes I wish protests never happened ... as it becomes tit for tat, ie. Bridgestone at Monaco. In the end we all loose because the FIA could not right rules to save themselves, and over do it in other areas ... like restricting all engines to the v10 configuration (totally sucks and destroys the laterial thinking that is F1). Happy Pete | ||
| Thomas I (Wax)
Member Username: Wax Post Number: 282 Registered: 7-2003 |
FIA politics, policies and tires aside, one mustn't minimize Schumacher, his pit crew or the car he was driving today. Sure, he beat 2nd by 5.294sec, but his run was the fastest in Formula One history! Schumacher's average speed of 247.585km/h, over 53 laps at Formula One's quickest circuit, exceeded the previous record of 242.615km/h set at Monza in 1971 by Britain's Peter Gethin in a BRM. 1971's epic finish remains in the record books as the closest finish - the winner was separated from Swedish runner-up Ronnie Peterson's March by 0.01 seconds. Incidentally, in '71's finish of finishes, France's Francois Cevert was 0.09 secs behind Gethin and Briton Mike Hailwood 0.18 secs adrift of the winner. Four cars inside .18 of a second of each other for the tightest race - but today, history was made on a whole 'nother level. | ||
| James Lee (Aventino)
Junior Member Username: Aventino Post Number: 100 Registered: 6-2003 |
Psk, I thought this was a win because of the changes that Ferrari dumped on the Michelin runners. But having got on pole MS drove well. Of the two, Williams and McLaren, Williams had more success in adapting to the new tyres. That put Ferrari back on pole, got more people watching and the sponsors more money etc. Was funny reading about the prerace interview where Ron D and Patrick H both asked why when Ferrari moan the FIA listens and why when others moan about Ferrari nothing changes. Think it was too close and the Michelin runners should be pegged a bit more, Sooooooo much more exciting when the championship is decided really early and Ferrari is winning by miles. Amusing that the other "live" post on the board suggests winning ALMS team Ferrari shouldn't be penalised and here we are supporting the quicker cars getting penalised if it means Ferrari win. The rules on tyres are open to interpretation so interpret them. Like they did with the barge boards. Their protest was in bad taste IMHO. Back to my bunker.... | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 933 Registered: 11-2002 |
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Well done Ferrari, great work to pick the car up into a winning position and great drive by MS to bring her home! Best race I have watched for ages, where we actually had a race instead of cars just circulating ... like almost every race this year thanks to the stupid NO incentive to win points system. Do NOT right off the Michelins, this was not a win because the Michelins were narrower ... as infact the race engineers actually reported that they are actually working BETTER than the wider tyres. This was quoted by Ryan Briscoe who is one of Toyota's young test drivers or drivers in training. Thus this win was an improved Ferrari/Bridgestone package ... and improved MS. Now we have a race to the championship, not just a lets see who gets it. Pete ps: Good drive by Montoya too ... he kept pushing, and that first stint was impressive to save his rear tyres ... | ||
| Steve B (Sjb509)
New member Username: Sjb509 Post Number: 24 Registered: 6-2003 |
The other side to the points debate is that it may actually have helped MS in the end. The point he scored in Hungary may be the one that wins him the Championship. Personally I would like to see the points awarded like this from first to eighth: 12-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. Add an additional point for pole (would encourage backmarker teams to use light fuel loads in qualifying to score points). The additional point for pole could be very important late in the season (if a driver was close to clinching the title and only needed the pole point, he could use very little fuel, but his rivals would also have to try to get pole to prevent clinching. Result: the top drivers pitting early and new faces at the front, albeit probably passed later in the race by the big boys). | ||
| A.Tonokaboni (Senna1994)
Junior Member Username: Senna1994 Post Number: 131 Registered: 9-2002 |
I guess Germany 2003 does not count for Montoya this year, giving him 3 wins? | ||
| MFZ (Kiyoharu)
Member Username: Kiyoharu Post Number: 319 Registered: 2-2003 |
I believe Montoya has two wins if I am not mistaken. Somewhat correct. Montoya has a total of two wins in his career, one in 2001 (at Monza), and the other at Monaco this year. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Member Username: Beast Post Number: 331 Registered: 5-2003 |
I think the FIA got what they wished for with the new points system. a close points battle. I myself dont feel that it is fair just look at NASCAR. The points leader this year has not won a bunch of races, yet has a commanding lead. I myself prefer the old system or change it to where there is still points to 8th place but, a 4 point gap from first to 2nd, and 3 points from 2nd to 3rd. 2 point from 3rd to 4th and then 1 point difference for each position afterwards. also have a point for pole and most laps led. points for legitimate passes for position would not be to bad also. just my 2 cents worth | ||
| Frederick Thomas (Fred)
Member Username: Fred Post Number: 796 Registered: 2-2001 |
I does seem unfair that Schumacher has 5 wins and is only ahead 3 points. I believe Montoya has two wins if I am not mistaken. During the middle of the race I thought for sure Montoya was going to catch him. | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 988 Registered: 8-2001 |
I am suspect that the new Michelin tires will lose some grip over the older tires. Also think the weather temps will be lower this time of year and that again is a Bridgestone advantage. It will be a close race no doubt but I think Ferrari will win at Indy (barring any pit stop screw ups or break downs). Suzuka will also be interesting. I am basing my prediction there for Ferrari again. I know it's also well suited to the Williams but Juan hasn't done as well there. I think it's somewhat unfair that MS has won 5 races and JPM 1 and they are seperated by onloy 3 points. I think Bernie got his wish and engineered a last lap, last corner Suzuka thriller. Regards, Jon | ||
| Andreas Forrer (Tifosi12)
Intermediate Member Username: Tifosi12 Post Number: 2134 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jon, not sure I agree with your statement about a Ferrari track coming up: As they said in the winner's interview the fast Monza track suited the Ferraris better, which mainly improved their engine (read top speed). So the tricky infield of Indy and particularly Suzuka might be a different story. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Member Username: Beast Post Number: 329 Registered: 5-2003 |
The first lap was great with JPM and MS side by side in the 2nd chicane. the middle of the race was a little stressful with JPM closing in. But in the end it all worked out. Hey Aaron dont feel bad i forgot to set my clock also and woke up right when the cars took the warm up lap. Rob | ||
| Aaron Williams (Aawil)
Member Username: Aawil Post Number: 322 Registered: 8-2002 |
I set my alarm and it didn't go off this morning.Woke up at 8:30 and was like ••••! Great result though. | ||
| rob guess (Beast)
Member Username: Beast Post Number: 328 Registered: 5-2003 |
Well it was not a 1-2 finish but Ferrari WINS!!!!!! Forza ferrari I dont think i am going to get a wink of sleep these next 2 weeks!!! | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 987 Registered: 8-2001 |
5 laps to go and it looks good for Schumacher! Finally some breathing room. Next up a Ferrari track...INDY! Regards, Jon P. Kofod 1995 F355 Challenge #23 www.flatoutracing.net |