If that logic follows, and being dead makes you a "bad" driver, maybe we could have a poll to decide which one of the following was the worst driver? Jim Clarke (Wasn't even driving an F1 car. Amateurish?) Jochen Rindt Gilles Villeneuve (in Practice - that's poor surely) Aberto Ascari Peter Collins Piers Courage Elio De Angelis Patrick Depailler Mike Hawthorn (must be a crap driver? - died on the road) Bruce Maclaren (Really rubbish driver? - died testing) Ronnie Peterson Tom Pryce (Killed by a dead man's fire extinguisher. He must be very bad) Wolfgang Von Trip blah blah blah Historically around 1/3 F1 drivers died in a motor vehicle, presumably you conclude that this shows that motor racing drivers aren't very good at driving? Perhaps they should slow down and not overtake each other - just like the new regulations are apparently trying to get them to do.
Now naturally im a big fan of Ferrari road cars, but never liked the f1 team much in its recent form. They have a chelsea-esque budget and have used it similarly to buy dominance They have one top driver They have great cars and millions of fans But what have they done? They have prioritised one driver (yeah its a team sport Zzzz) They have never employed anyone to challenge Schumi (barrichellos a nice bloke but is no raikonnen, JP, Alonso, button etc) They prefer to do their overtaking in the pit lane as calculated by boffins and laptops Theu dont co-operate with the other teams in the interest of the sport (testing, costs etc) They have refused to let their drivers race each other. The last bit is by far the most significant. There have been many periods where one team is dominant (Mclaren, Williams etc) but they let their drivers race each other. This has left a sporting spectacle even where one team is dominant. The dominant team had most of the f1 fan base but within that there was rivalry between fans of the respective drivers. Ferrari IMO have done a huge amount of damage to F1 as a sport by rendering it boring for the last 5 years. If they had had someone really racing Schumacher then it could have been so different. Im no taking away from their achievements but they seem shortsighted to me. Its not it seems in their interest to keep F1 a spectator sport. Its better to parade their cars around to keep the sponsorship money coming in. Currently you have Fiat (and sponsors) writing big cheques. And why? not so they can sell more f-cars as im sure they would sell their lowly production numbers anyhow. To promote other fiat brands? Maybe, but what happens after fiat spins off ferrari or goes finally bankrupt. It seems to me quite likely that after fiat/marlboro money stops ferrari have to or chose to leave f1 leaving a big hole in the sport. To me i wish they had just given us something more to smile about in terms of racing over the last few years rather than contributing (amongst with the technology, state of the other teams, aerodynamics, tyres etc) to a decline in the sport versus how i remember the senna, mansell era.
Because McLaren were using the Ford engine again, in a make do couple of seasons, not so clever, whereas Schumacher was driving his socks off in the Benetton which was a much better chassis and engine combination. (But don't forget Donnington in the rain in that year, the European Grand Prix, when Senna overtook 7 cars to take the lead on the first lap, including Schuey, the two of them had a punch up at Magny Cours when they took each other off in the wet and both took an early bath). This needle match left Mansell free to steal their thunder with Renault power) Senna won the championship in 88, 90 and 91 with Honda power, Ford was a step down too far for Ayrton. McLaren did the Merecedes deal after Senna left, Williams got their man after 5 times trying. A job left unfinished, thats what the tragedy 1st May 1994 was. Great Pity. D11VE:J D11VE:J
well said at donnington they had wets on as it was raining but senna stayed out on slicks and passed them in the wet there is nobody good enough to wear senna's glove never mind his helmet
