Hey, I *promise* I did search for something along the lines of the following "food for thought", but came up empty, which surprised me somewhat.... As a long(long) time Tifosi I have a bad feeling we're about to see a lot more "vehicle failures" with Kimi at the helm [Unless we see one, then the second, trail of smoke as each bank lets go, they tend to deny "engine failure" as we know ] Even more depressing is I believe (and I may be being really stupid here - we'll see) that Fernando will do the inverse for Mclaren :-( I have a "gut feel" that, even with all the electronic-gizmos "protecting" them, that Michael and Fernando are simply "gentler" on their mounts. I admit I haven't checked to see if the statistics back up the above (I'm sure someone will!), but do know that prior to Mclaren Kimi had never really driven anything *capable* of blowing up And part of the equation is pure, dumb luck - Accepted - But, it seems to me that all the true greats had reputations for being "gentle" on their cars....[Senna's legendary pole @ Suzuka notwithstanding!] As I said, I'm a team supporter, so wish both Kimi and Felipe the best and that Mclarens woes continue. I guess this is why we watch - Even if it is, in my case right now, with considerable trepidation..... Cheers, Ian
Michael and Alonso have shown the ability to drive thru faults several times in their career and protect their machinery when needed. Michael's drive in Spain 94 was amazing - he had only 5th gear working and he still finished second by changing his driving style mid-race. In 2005, there was a race in which Fernando drove with a broken floor and still did well. Pat Symmonds thought that Fred had something like 10-15% less downforce but the laptimes didnt fall commensurately. Kimi is a hard charger. The number of instances where he nursed a car thru is very low. I can think of one race in 2005 where he had a litany of problems with the clutch, gearbox full of neutrals, etc. but he still won the race. He has sometimes thrown caution to the wind - Imola 2005, Germany 2005 where he threw away sure wins by overdriving his car on the curbs @ Imola and flat spotting his tire while trying to overtake JV in Germany. I do believe that some of his forceful driving could be due to anger at the MC-Merc establishment for continually letting him down when it mattered. He basically was thinking - Screw that - blow the sucker up for all I care. Besides I think the McMercs are a very fragile race car. The Ferrari ought to be stronger. Kimi is intelligent enough to realize that if this year's Ferrari is anything as good as the 06 one, then if he doesn't nurse it to the end Massa is going to get the WDC instead of him.
Kimi will inherit Gilles Villeneuve's title: "Prince of Destruction" And guess what: I'll love him for that as F1 racing will become so much more exciting again.
Here, here. I must live in a cave as I've never heard the "Prince of Destruction" tag. But you know what ? I LIKE IT !
Any decent Enzo biography will quote it. It is the nickname Enzo gave his "adopted son" Gilles. I'm thinking back of watching live on TV as Gilles was tearing his Ferrari to shreds lilmping on 2 wheels (1 in the air, 1 gone) back to the pitlane in Zandvoort. And Kimi racing his McLaren with a worn tire around Nuerburgring until the entire suspension collapsed causing him to crash into the wall comes to the mind as well. Now there is a driver who takes no prisoners and races flat out for the victory! YAHOO!!!
This is true...but how many championships did GV win. Granted, he was on his way until Zolder, but beating on the car as GV did and KR has shown he has a penchant for is generally not a way to win a WDC or a WCC. Your multiple WDC's have always had a reputation for being easy on equipment and for being very smooth. Surtees, JYS, Lauda, Prost, Schumacher were all very easy on their cars. Those that were less so, Hunt, Senna, Scheckter, Villenueve, while they have won, did so more sporadically. Being more mechanically sympathetic pays dividends with your mechs as well While it may be exciting, it is one of the concerns that I have with KR. I am hopeful that he can remain quick while eliminating some of his destructiveness. I believe that this is one of the strengths of Massa, even if he is not as naturally quick.
Gilles could have easily won the 1979 championship if he wanted to. But being the gentleman that he was, he accepted the agreement and stayed behind Jody in the final race (while he was faster). Remember 2003? The Championship between MS and Kimi was decided in the last race. So who's to say, that Kimi can't take care of a car?
I hope you are right and KR brings a a championship to Ferrari. We shall see. If Massa is consistant, the Constructors can come to Ferrari as well.
Gilles was actually pretty sensitive to his cars, but he was a racing driver first and foremost. In fact he used to be pissed at 90% of the other drivers on the grid for not been real racers ... imagine what he would think of todays poofs? Because he was a racer, Gilles would push the limit finer and would take more risks. We have to remember that for most of his career he drove completely uncompetitive Ferraris and performed miracles in those trucks ... no wonder some could not keep up with him. I used to see this sort of racer in Kimi ... man I hope the fire can be re-lit . Pete
Senna won sporadically?!? Are you new to the sport?? Senna taught Schumacher lessons on driving smoothly and being mechanically sympathetic. Read some of MS's early interviews and see for yourself.
You don't know Doug Ney?! Are YOU new to the sport?! Anyway you misquoted or misunderstood him. He never claimed Senna won sporadically. Re-read his post.
I did read his post. Look at the second line I quoted from him, he specifically includes Senna as being one of those drivers who won sporadically. I find that comment to be baffling, I assume he made a mistake in typing it.
Correct me if I'm wrong but he didn't write that Senna etc. won more sporadically. He wrote that they were easy on their cars more sporadically (granted it was written confusingly).
I thought you had me on your ignore list! I was so proud to have made it. Anyway... I suspect I have been following this sport longer than you have been alive, but I shall try to help with your understanding. I was speaking of World Drivers Championship winners, Senna being the most succesful of those I mentioned. Senna often drove the car past its limits, often to the point of being ragged, especially in qualifying. His incredible car control and spiritual beliefs in his given abilities allowed him to get away with this and win WDC's. Manhandling the car and pushing it past what it was ready for was a Senna trademark and it was what may have killed him. If you watch the in car from MS following Senna at Imola you see a car on the ragged edge. Most of the others who drive this way, while exciting to watch are not as successful. Think Hunt, Senna, GV, Peterson, Brambilla etc. Those that have been more successful, going all of the way back to Fangio, were noted for their smooth "deceptive" speed, almost boring to watch do to their consistancy. Think Prost, MS, JYS, Lauda. Drivers mature throughout their career. You cannot teach raw speed. Most top drivers start out fast but wild and move toward fast and smooth. Others start fast and wild and stay somewhat wild. Both sets are incredible drivers, however WDC success tends to lean toward the former. Peter...I appreciate your support , however I am not Doug Nye, english automotive writer and historian. I do know Doug and spoke with him at Goodwood a few years ago and converse with him of TNF on occasion.
Most teams out there would give their left you-know-what to have a driver that "over drives" the car (as Kimi supposedly does).
I am 44 years old and have been following F1 since my dad took me to Watkins Glen in the early 1970s. If you have been following F1 for longer than that, well God bless you. Thanks for the clarification, the way your original post was worded was not so clear. Your points are well taken. I appreciate conversing with you when you are not being sarcastic and derogatory, perhaps we can continue this trend. I agree that Senna would on occasion run his cars at the limit, however he largely drove at 9/10s or even 8/10s. How many times did we see him pull an extra second or two a lap (or more) when he needed to? I would not lump him into the category of a balls-out, oversteering-every-corner driver like a GV or a Peterson. His driving was far more controlled in that sense and, while not as undramatic as a Prost, was certainly not as destructive to his equipment as were other drivers discussed. His drive at Imola, that you mentioned, was due to his belief (rightly so, apparently) that the Benetton was running an illegal traction control device and that Senna's only chance of keeping pace was to run the Williams at the edge. Furthermore he was uncomfortable with the car's set-up that race and may even have still been rattled by Ratzenberger's death the previous day. Whether these contributed to his demise or whether he was simply the unfortunate victim of equipment failure has still not been conclusively determined as far as I know. You raise an interesting point and one thing I would like to see is a comparison of mechanical failures between Prost and Senna during their rivalry. I suspect they are relatively evenly balanced.
Jeez - that's all we need - a bunch of old geezers arguing it out. What's next - My cholestrol is lower than yours? Seriously though - I really wish I could have been at the races in the 70s and 80s - superb racers and great tracks. Something lost for ever. Andreas - I like the expression "Prince of Destruction" - though Takuma Sato at least in his BAR days might be more appropriate candidate.
You have mis-understood Enzo's term. Enzo loved GV, he did not loave him. I am sure Honda grew tired of Sato destroying cars ... I actually thought I saw something in the guy but alas he was not able to turn that into 'the right stuff'. There is a lot of respect in Enzo's "Prince of Destruction" term, it was not a '**** he has stuffed another car' comment at all. Actually I thought it was "High priest of destruction", but now I am being anal ... . As I alluded to in my earlier post on this thread regarding GV, alot of this 'GV destroyed' cars is unfair and has become a 'fairy tail or legend' if you like. If you read the race history there were reasons for things happening, very, very few were because GV simply made a mistake. Sure there were cases where he tried to pass everybody in the first corner, but there would have been a gap ... it simply disappeared. Oh how I would like to see some of the current drivers actually 'try' to pass somebody ... Pete
Yeah I'm off topic ... Takes a brilliant driver to do this: And ... And, this says it all ... These current modern drivers would rather just take second or third on the grid and go home and hug mummy! Wish I had been old enough to take it in ... bummer! Pete
Wasn't it Enzo Ferrari who once said that "the perfect race car breaks down moments after the finish line?" In essence i guess, you need someone to really push something so hard but at the same time know the car so well that every little bit of it is used up immediately after the finish line and never before? Maybe that is why Enzo had such an affinity for Giles, maybe Kimi will do the same
