| Readers' Comments | |
|
| |
| Updated: 8 October 1997 | Luxembourg Issue |
|
Dear Atlas,
Well, the 'Silly Season' is almost over, and the annual game of musical chairs is all but resolved with the teams having decided who they will have driving for them in 1998. I suppose the only lose end to tie up concerns Berger (and maybe Irvine), although this weekend will probably end that speculation too. What I'm rather suprised about though, is just how many of the established names have managed to keep seats for next year, when there seems so many younger, hungrier drivers out there, who would be happy to drive in Formula One for a lot less money. I mean, take for instance the debate around Berger and Irvine. No, for the life of me I can't see why any Formula One team would want to take Berger on. Lets face it, he's lost his motivation. The fact that he did so well in his comeback drive in Germany only goes to prove the point. When he is motivated he can win races in the Bennetton, but his poor results in the last few races show that he is just going through the motions. And consider his team mate of this year, Jean Alesi. For years Alesi has had the reputation of being a 'potential' World Champion, but is this reputation really deserved? For most of his Formula One career, Alesi has driven for top teams and, yet in all this time, he has only scored one solitary victory. Where does this 'potential' World Champion status come from? Certainly it's not based on his race results! Perhaps he should take up Stock Car racing... judging by the accident he was responsible for in the Austrian Grand Prix with Irvine, that is one area of motor sport he has got the aptitude for. Another driver who's reputation as a 'potential' World Champion far exceeds his abilities is Frentzen. In Frentzen, Frank Williams was meant to have the answer to Michael Schumacher based upon the fact that about a decade ago Frentzen beat Schumacher in a sports car race. What was Frank thinking off!! It was like trying to predict the Degree Grade of someone at University based upon an exam taken when they were five years old. The correlation of which is very poor. Why didn't Frank just look at Frenzen's results in Formula One? The first time Frentzen had a realistic chance of winning a race (Monaco in 1996) he threw it away. Perhaps this is why of the eight victories Williams have scored this year, only one of those belong to Frentzen. Johnny Herbert showed last year that he was a far better driver than Frentzen. The fact that Williams dropped a reigning World Champion for someone who couldn't even beat his own team mate, let alone drivers of the caliber of Schumacher, Villenuve and Hill, has to be one of the worlds greatest mysteries. So, congratulations to Tyrrell for signing Takagi, and Bennetton for signing Wurtz. I hope Prost shows sense too and signs Trulli. Okay, some of these drivers may not succeed, but at least they are being given a chance to prove themselves. The sooner the likes of Berger, Alesi and Frentzen accept reality and either retire or join the CART circus, allowing talented drivers to take their place, the better Formula One will be.
Gary Paul Slegg
Dear Atlas, In reply to Nuno Becker's interesting and informative analysis of how engineers calculate peak horsepower of racing engines. I appreciate all the intracacies of calculating the hp of an engine when it is in the chassis of the car; however, Nuno will find that most people in the trade use a simple bench and a dynamometer to accurately ascertain the peak horsepower of an engine - including at Ferrari. It is widely speculated that this engine is now the most powerful, providing in excess of 800hp. The Mercedes may be close, but it is over stressed, as shown by the recent departures of Hakkinen and Coulthard on numerous occasions this season. What sparked this debate between him and myself is Nuno's assertion that Michael is very disadvantaged by driving the Ferrari as compared to the Williams of Villeneuve. The difference between the Ferrari, Williams and even the Maclaren is no longer the huge gap it used to be. Here's why: 1) Ferrari's engine is at least as powerful as it's counterpart at Williams (Renault) and the Mercedes. In fact the way that, despite its supposedly poor chassis, it pulls away from most other cars on the straight seems to indicate it is more powerful. 2) Some F1 insiders are acknowledging that the revival in fortunes at Ferrari and McLaren have less to do with Michael Shumacher and David Coulthard this season and has more to do with the hiring of engineers like Ross Brawn and Adrian Newey. Think of the negative impact this must have had on both Williams and Benetton, and you will come to one inescapable conclusion: things are more equal in the chassis department now than ever! This fact is borne out by results. Michael is himself schocked at how well he and his Ferrari have done this season. His goal was two or three gp victories and certainly not contention of the championship. 3) Prior to the departure of Hakkinen and Couthard at the last GP, Villeneuve admitted that he and his Williams could not catch the Maclarens. Now Hakkinen is good, but not that good... Could it be that his chassis and engine are getting better like Michaels... I wonder Hmmmmm! No more excuses Schumacher/Hakkinen fans - your men have to come up with the goods now.
Paul "tongue in cheek" Nixon
Well, let's all jump on the man brave enough to admit his bias. I don't like Schuey, like Alan Jones (and I quote him in F1 Racing) I think he's a good driver but an arrogant little shit. When I moved to Adelaide in '92, I sat on the balcony listening to the noise from the track, a block away, and watched the race on telly. Schuey did a damn good job. Two years later and I returned from Uni in time to do the same thing. I can't remember how many times they replayed what I like to refer to as "the incident" but it sure as hell was no accident. What made it worse was that Hill had fought back after the death of his current and former team-mates to be able to challenge for the championship. In his second real year of F1, I hardly think Brabham in '92 counts. This year Villeneuve has shown his lack of maturity, not knowing when to keep his trap shut and when to speak. I don't think either of the current contenders are in any way deserving of the championship. But that's just my opinion. It's also my opinion that too many drivers have proved how damn good they are in mid-grid to tail-end cars and are still stuck in them while others have been the victims of apalling luck through the year. Still, I get the feeling next year could be very different indeed.
Aaron Leverton
Why are 50% of Villeneuve fans so volatile? I read the comments section, and there is always a Villeneuve fan of some description ripping into people for daring to criticise him... ...The comments section of Atlas is rapidly disolving into a poor imitation of rec.autos.sports.f1. Incisive comments would appreciated, not the petty backbiting that is taking it over now. Message to ALL Villeneuve fans: Don't take life so damn seriously. Lighten up, will you? Yours,
Steve Coe I agree with Steve. The last thing I want is to have Readers' Comments turn into an extension of r.a.s.f1. And, I'm sure the majority of you would agree. I've received many emails over the weekend regarding my Villeneuve comments. It seems that many of you can't accept that people do differ in their opinions and observations. Atlas does not exist to provide psychological counseling for racing fans with inferiority complexes. If you send trash, that's where it ends up.
Paul Kaizar
Dear Atlas, Paul Nixon contested my comments on Atlas about Schumacher's having ashen chances on the Championship after the disastrous Austrian GP and wrote, "Ferrari has the most powerful engine in F1..." Well, experienced racing engineers usually find great difficulties on guessing the power of the the concurrent engines. Normally they make their estimating based on intricate formulas involving the drag coefficient of the cars and the maximum speed they reach on known stretches of the tracks, the elapsed time on accelerating and the comparison of these performance figures with those from their own cars whose horsepower they know yet. They also use the frequency of the engine's explosions - from the electronic analysis of the engine's roar - considering the number of cylinders, to get some clues about its peak RPM ; an important source of power that lead engines revving ever higher and higher. Based on all that, these experts dare to suggest that the most powerful engines in the current crop are Mercedes, Renault and Peugeot. But Paul disagrees. I'm not sure what he bases his opinion on. By his reckoning, the F1 most powerful engine is the Ferrari; I hope he is right. Regards,
Nuno Becker
Thoughts on the recent comments on the '97 season: 1. Regarding the 'what-if' department, remember that Villeneuve was leading Schumacher and the rest at Silverstone before his pit stop problems, and if Coulthard had won Montreal, then Schumacher would have 4 fewer points right now. Villeneuve also lost the lead at Imola through pit/car problems. One can speculate endlessly... 2. "Luck," or consistency, or opportunism has factored into many World Championships (although not to the extreme of NASCAR), including those won by Rosberg (1982), Piquet (1987), Prost (1989), and even Senna (1991). 3. Villeneuve has made mistakes this year, but so did Schumacher in his second F1 season: "Schumacher made errors in 4 out of 16 races, which represents one-fourth of the year, and is too many for a potential World Champion." (Tony Dodgins in On Track Magazine, 1993). Granted the Benetton Ford '93 was not quite at the level of the Williams '97.... 4. The points advantage of JV and MS is notable given that the field appears to be more equal than in recent years. It will be interesting next year to see which, if any, of the rising teams/drivers can make inroads into the 50 point gap that separates the top 2 from the rest in '97. 5. IF the standings stay as they are now, a Williams will carry the #1 for the first time since.......Keke Rosberg in 1983!
J. Burk
RE: Villeneuve Bias
"Jacques has had 'Lady Luck'..." Yes, Jacques had the luck of having to run an extra two laps because of a penalty he incurred due to a mistake made by the driver of the pace car. Goodyear knew Villeneuve was faster than him, tried to squeeze the restart, and blew it. He then proceeded to embarass himself by refusing to accept blame. "Remember Bobby Rahal standing on..." I watched that race too. My opinion is that Rahal didn't give Jacques the line when Jacques had the corner. However, at worst I think it was a no-fault racing incident, and I never did figure out what about it made Rahal so angry. "Villeneuve drove full speed into..." Did you see this incident? The yellows had just come out, and Villeneuve had very little time to react to them. He made a rookie mistake. The reason he hit Hiro was because the tire smoke hadn't even begun to clear yet. I don't know where you got the idea that he didn't accept blame for this incident. In an interview afterwards, he admitted his error and said he wouldn't make that mistake again. Even Schumacher has been known to miss a yellow from time to time. Jacques has had both good and bad luck this year. He is fortunate that the good luck he has had has been _so_ good. However, any driver that can win the championship in the very competitive CART series is much better than an 'average to above-average driver'. He seems to have become the man many people love to hate, but he is good and he is here to stay. Just watch. Later,
Darik
RE: Villeneuve Bias I must take issue with your opinion that it was JV's incompetence that led to him T-Boning Matsushita. I saw the race and other drivers also complained of poor visibility of the yellow lights. Also, do you really think that JV would have risked his own life in such a reckless manouvere. Hiro is not a factor in CART and never has been. I agree on the luck issue. He has been handed at least 3 races. Silverstone, Hungary and the Nurburgring. If he came second in those races he would be 3 points behind Schumacher. 1998 will hopefully be the great equalizer. RE: Hill v Senna I had great difficulty with your comparison of Hill to Senna. When Hill has completed 161 starts, then we will see who has the better percentages. The fact that Senna did not have as high a win/pole percentage does not mean that he was a bad starter, other incidents during a race can put you out, whether it be his fault or not. Monaco 1988, Mexico 1990. There are numerous others. A percentage you should consider is how many races Senna has won from elsewhere on the grid. That is the mark of a true racer.
John Andrew Leo-Rhynie
RE: Villeneuve Bias I find it interesting that Villeneuve inspires such strong pro/con feelings in people. I personally root for the guy - he seems to be racing because he thinks it is fun and has a real life somewhere off the track, thus enabling him to see F1 in some perspective. (It was pretty hilarious when he said something along the lines of "I'm not supposed to call the FIA officials idiots and losers anymore" at the post-spanking press conference right before Canada GP). He needs to gain some maturity as a driver, but at least this year we are spared the weird Hamlet act we got last year with Damon. As I recall, Villeneuve did not have the Indy 500 'handed' to him. He came back from a 5-mile, 2-lap penalty to put himself in the position to win the race. As for the other incidents mentioned, I did not see the one involving Matsushita, but since CART is so much more competitive (more than one pass per race? Whassup?!) than F1, incidents are a lot more common. Wheels get banged, people get pushed (ask Bryan Herta). Heard the flak Zenardi got this year? Well, aggression tempered by intelligence is what it takes to win in CART, and Jacques has it.
Juliane Schneider
Dear Atlas, You really should let mister Paul Ryder write all the previews and reviews! For once it was nice to read the Luxembourg review with not just praise on Schumacher and Williams. There was also analysis on McLarens and especially on Hakkinen's achievements.
Kari Tuovinen
RE: Villeneuve Bias So I guess you hate M.Schumacher now too, since he also did not see a yellow flag?
David Vanderbyl
RE: Villeneuve Bias i went back and watched the matsushita incident again, i think you should too.
Danial Car
RE: Villeneuve Bias I find it quite strange that Atlas F1 keeps talking about luck and lack of respect about the driver who will probably win the title this year, who was the first ever rookie to win the pole and get the fastest lap on his very first race. Of course being a Quebecois I am a Villeneuve fan, but at least I show respect for the other drivers. I just removed Atlas F1 from my bookmarks. The article I see there are not worth my time anymore. Good bye
Gilbert Lamoureux
RE: Villeneuve Bias Mr Kaizar, I don't think that you are biased at all, I think that you simply don't have your facts right. First thing, about the 94 Phoenix race: I still have the tape of this race and I looked at the incident with Matsushita and Villeneuve very carefully. First you have to remember that it was JV rookie year and that this particular race was only his second Indy car race. His first in an oval track. Between the accident of Matsushita and the contact with JV's car elapsed only 11.5 seconds. (Not a full lap as you wrongfully stated, you are not very honest are you?) And you have to remember that full course yellow lights are not turned on instantly. He didn't ignored it like you said he just plainly missed it (like some genius god Ferrari driver did in Austria) and it was his crew who told him (too late) that there was a yellow. Can you really believe that a guy can put his own life at stake just to "ignore" a yellow light. Come on be serious!!! At the end of that particular tape is an after race interview with Jacques saying that drivers had difficulties to see the yellows at that track. And that he was on the outside of the track with a bad angle and that he braked too late. Secondly, do you remember that JV finished second in his first ever Indy 500 race before winning in 95. Luck, you said. Yes he was so lucky that he was the only one to race 505 miles that day because of a two laps penalty. And that Scott Goodyear was penalized for the same reason Jacques was. So JV was not at all lucky in that Indy500 race. He just showed the world what an intelligent talented young driver he was. And he still is. Please get your facts right.
94- Indy car rookie of the year
Mario Bélanger à Repentigny
Dear Atlas, It is obvious that Schumacher supporters (Mike not Ralphy) do not see the action of the British Marshall in Austria as the impartial act of a highly observant marshall to enforce the safety rules of F1. EVERYONE (even fast Germans) have to abide by the rules. The problem was Michael was not vigilant. We are all human, including Mike, and we can make mistakes. Impartialiaty was demonstrated by the marshall for having the GUTS to slap him with the penalty in Austria. And why would a British marshall have anysort of hidden agenda to help a Canadian? Mika was driving a British car too... No it's patently obvious that the biggest threat to Michael may be from his brother... As for other readers comments (hello, Nuno. Re: "the dream is over") Michael is far from lame, and nor is his car (the most powerful engine in F1). As for being the struggle of the "brave" "Red Baron" versus a Williams driven by a non entity I beg to differ. Mike is a fantastic driver, but he is not the sole brave driver with skill. Look nine points up the F1 points standings and you will see a Canadian, driving a car that is definitely not the superior product it once was, showing an equal amount of tenacity and skill. F1 is not a war, it is a race: lets not liken any of the competitors to WW1 flying aces or Messerschmits...it leaves a bad taste in ones mouth...not least, I'm sure, in Mr. Schumacher's.
Paul Nixon
Dear Atlas, It is common amongst F1 fans who do not like Damon Hill to say he is a bad driver because he does not make very good race starts. My reaction to this is that it is a load of twaddle. Damon is a top rate driver, who statistically has converted all of his pole positions into race victories. If this is still not convincing enough to the 'unbeleivers'. I would like to compare him to the 'great' Ayrton Senna. In Senna's carrrer, he accumilated a whopping 64 poles, but he could only manage to win 41 times. For all the statitions out there, Damon converted 104% of his pole positions into wins, while Senna only converted 64% of his poles into wins. If you are ever going to say that Damon is a bad race starter, then you will also have to conceed that so too is Ayrton Senna.
John Fulbrook
John, I'll take your word on Damon having a great translation percentage of poles to wins than Ayrton, but I'm having trouble understanding you're claim of 104%. Unless, that is, you're working backwards and simple. I believe Damon has 20 poles and 21 wins. I think you would have to track stats from each race Damon obtained pole and calculate a percent from wins of those races. Obviously, Damon has won races where he wasn't on pole. But, your terminology of "convert" can only have a limit of 100%. Some very basic figures are (these are pre 1997): Hill: 67 Races, 21 Wins (31.34%), 20 Poles (29.85%), 47 Front Rows, 19 Fastest Laps (28.63%), 326 Points (4.87 per gp avg), 42 Races Led, 1,274 Laps Led Senna:161 Races, 41 Wins (25.47%), 65 Poles (40.37%), 87 Front Rows, 19 Fastest Laps (11.80%), 614 Points (3.81 per gp avg), 86 Races Led, 2,931 Laps Led Coming into this year, Damon had some great statistics. However, I think some of his critics might point to his results with TWR Arrows, not so much with situations he can't control, but with situations where he can (like stalling his car in the Pits at Nurburgring and letting Michael Schumacher past for a vital point in Austria).
Paul Kaizar If Alain Prost wants a driver who's proven to be faster than Oliver Panis (when they were teammates at Ligier for half of the 95 season), who's experienced, who's a good development driver, who's still hungry and who wouldn't cost millions, who outscored M. Schuchmacher over the last nine races of the 92 season, then Prost just needs to call Martin Brundle.
William J. Harry
Dear Atlas, Congratulations on a great site. I noticed after the Luxembourg Grand Prix that Fisichella chose to respond to questions in Italian through a diplomatic interpreter. This seems to be an excellent way of filtering post race frustrations. Could the same approach be used by Eddy Irvine using Irish Gaelic - which presumably the Ferrari bosses are less than fluent in? Regards,
Allan
PS. I plan to be with the Tifosi at Jerez with my wife and son and their Schumi flag. Me, I'll wave a St Andrew's flag for Coulthard. Dear Atlas: After watching yesterday's Grand Prix, twice, I still had a sense that we were all disappointed on more than a few occasions. Anyway, here are my observations from the Grand Prix of Luxembourg: 1) The first corner incident was a "racing accident" (as if there was any other kind) or as our NASCAR boys say (that's just one them racin' deals). The accident could have been avoided, but who's ego in that group would have allowed their right foot to back out and let there driving skills take over later on in the race? 2) The only way to pass at the Nurburgring (I've been there and it looks a lot wider on T.V.) is either through a pit stop or hold your breath and "I hope he sees me coming"!!! 3) Poor Mika. You have to feel sorry for the bloke - however, not too sorry. I expect McLaren to be the one to beat next year with a Mercedes engine and Newey chassis. I guess it's time for the boys from Woking to get back to the top step again. 4) Could someone please tell me the last time we had twenty (20) different drivers on the table and ten (10) teams as well? 5) If Benetton go with Wurtz and Fisichella next year will history repeat itself? Two new drivers in the team AGAIN? Did they not learn with Berger and Alesi? Not only that, at least Berger and Alesi could develop a car that could suit them both, but Wurtz and Fissy? Two very "green" drivers that will have to develop a car together? We'll see.... 6) I was surprised to hear that Prost was surprised that Damon did not sign for them and treated them poorly to boot. Alain, surely your not suggesting that because you and Damon were "one time" buds that he'd give you some slack......It's still F-1, and you haven't been out that long to forget, have you? 7) Let's ALL hope that the Championship battle doesn't come down to first corner incidents, as it has in years past, and that we have a CLEAN battle for the title. I always had reservations with the whole Prost/Senna thing. But, ultimately, I blame the FIA for not stepping in and giving harsh disciplinary action for those incidents. Seeing as how there wasn't any precedent set, that leaves the door open for those types of things to happen in the future. Hence, the Schumacher/Hill incident whereby Michael deliberately turned into Hill. Hill being the English gentleman that he is, didn't make issue. I guess that would be crying over spilt milk, wouldn't it? 8) When did Verstappen become such a pain in the ass? 9) Goodbye Flavio... Michael made that team and took the success with him when he left. 10) I really enjoyed the last page article in "my" last issue of Autosport (for some reason my subscription lags behind the rest of the world) entitled "where have all the hero's gone"? Very insightful and a good read, as always. That'd be it for now. I will no doubt wait anxiously for Oct 19. I have always regarded Suzuka as a great race track - right up there with Spa! I think Suzuka will be where Villenueve and Williams clinch their respective titles. Remember... if you spin... both feet in... and let's hope its the silent kind (no noise at the end - that's the difference between a spin and a crash!)
Joe Johnston
According to the Gale Force F1 data, I noticed a couple of interesting things (well, interesting to me! And I'm a Villeneuve fan.): Shumacher has led in 11 of 15 races so far. In races where he's through the first corner cleanly, 11 of 13! Vill 9 of 15 overall, and 9 of 13 clean first turns. Shu has held or improved his grid position at race end (being classified) 10 times in 12 finishes! Alesi (!), Berger (++!) and Herbert (!!) each on 9 occasions, Villeneuve 8 times in 10 finishes. Herbert has held or improved in all 9 of his classifications! Berger has been classified in 11 of his 12 races and not only has the longest classification streak (8 races in a row), all eleven of his classifications have been in the top ten! Berger naysayers should bite their tongues! Alesi has 11 top 10 finishes as well, in 12 classifications. (Vill 10). Shu, of course, has the most classifications with 12, all top 6, geez... Makes you wonder who actually drives the Bennetons in qualifying! Villeneuve has started 31 F1 races, winning 11 of the (unofficial!) 21 races that he has actually crossed the finish line. While Villeneuve and Williams are now on the brink of their respective Championships, you'll have noticed that post qualifying and post race comments by a (mild-mannered!) Jacques have always been with reference to Michael Schumacher and only rarely toward Ferrari. I'm sure Jacques has no doubt about Shu's true status as THE MAN, and will be out to try to prove that he hasn't just 'backed into' his position. (Should Jacques clinch the Championship next race, wouldn't it be fun to see Schumacher, for kicks, try qualifying, say, a Stewart?) Maybe it's just me, but despite Hakkinen's cry-baby attitude and that yes, he should have likely had a good shot at winning Luxembourg, it seems that the Mercedes engine can't perform under pressure. We know Mika and Coulthard are genuinely fast racers, but how many times have the Mercedes engines blown when being pushed for a key position versus just muddling around out of the points? Maybe I'm imagining it all. Any so-called engine development in public for this year is going to be useless next year with more wear and tear overall due for '98.
Glenn Anderson
Is it really this easy to take a Championship now? Through no showing of your own but through the misfortunes of others? Give Michael Schumacher Silverstone. Give Hakkinen Austria and Nurburging. Give Coulthard Canada. Give Damon Hill Hungary, and then see what the Championship looks like. Things went wrong for these deserving winners. Very worthy of a victory each time, leading from the front, and not scooping up the win by default. Thats the way to win races and Championships. From the front. Do enough. Deserve it. Show your brilliance and be worth the damn thing. This Championship is a farce, a non event. Its being handed to Jacques Villeneuve on a silver platter because in the end the Ferrari is woefully uncompetitive, the McLaren is still unreliable, the Benettons are on their backfoot and Damon Hill is conveniently out of the picture. But it wont always be like this. Then what?
J. Hashmi
J. Hashmi, I understand how you feel. Jacques has had "Lady Luck" (credit to Mazen Baradhy) on his side for a long time. This is a big streak. No, not big, huge. This streak stretches into the 1995 IndyCar season. Justified or not, I must ask (or remind) how Jacques won the Indianapolis 500? Well, not all of it was luck in 1995. Remember Bobby Rahal standing on the Mid-Ohio track during a full course yellow pointing and shaking his finger at Jacques after Jacques knocked him out of the way and out of the race? I'm not sure why, but that image has stayed with me for a long time. Or, in 1994 at Phoenix when Villeneuve drove full speed into a stopped Hiro Matsushita, splitting him in half, sending tires into the crowd, after ignoring a full lap of yellow flags? I must be honest and say that I lost a great deal of respect for Jacques after that incident. In interviews afterward, he failed to take the blame for a situation that was entirely his fault. It was a very serious matter where fans were injured and Hiro could have been killed. So, I understand when people say that Jacques is very lucky. I agree with them because I never thought he would reach this far after (now this is just my opinion) being an average to above-average driver in IndyCar. However, as I eluded to, I have been biased ever since that race in Phoenix.
Paul Kaizar |