| Readers' Comments | |
|
| |
| Updated: 20 April 1998 | Argentina Issue |
|
Well, that was fun! I'm glad no one got hurt with all the contact, and I am
a bit disappointed that there wasn't more replays by the Argentinian
Director of some of the passes that happened; but there WAS lots of
excitement in this latest race.
Some observations: I was a bit upset when I saw Schumacher and DC come together early in the race, feeling that Schumacher had done it again, but I have to agree with most of the letters here, that Schuie was just doing his job: diving for the inside. Brundle's comment that DC might not have expected the move is BS. DC saw Michael in his mirrors, getting closer and closer on each lapand just blew it under braking, leaving the "door" wide open for Michael. Usually I find Murray Walker and Martin Brundle very entertaining, but this weekend I just found them to be annoying the way that they always sided with their British drivers in every incident. I understand this, as it's hard to be impartial when you are of the same nationality, but they were a little over the top during this race, I felt. Did ANYONE see what happened between DC and Villie? Was it 70/30 Villie's fault like Brundle suggested? Does he have access to other camera angles than the regular audience, because I couldn't tell anything from the angle they showed us. It looked like David was trying to pass on the outside of the corner... Has anyone else noticed how twitchy the William's cars seem to be? Especially under braking, they are see-sawing back and forth all over the road. None of the other cars seemed to be having quite as much of a problem. Looking forward to Imola!
Barry
Hi! Thank's for your great web-pages. Only improvement I could think of would be a newsletter. Ok. Back to business: If I have understood all these rumours right McLaren is using electric motors to pump fuel and oil. Now as well I have heard that in the FIA rules F1 car must be a monoengine car. So F1 car can have only one motor, right? Also I have got this idea that by taking the power from batteries instead of from the engine to use these electric fuel and oil pumps McLaren could get extra 30 horse power. So the question is are my suspections true? Or have I been mislead? Does McLaren use batteries to use their oil and fuel pumps? And if they do, do any other F1 teams have any sollutions that are alike? And is this against FIA's rules? Ok. More speculations: This is purely a guess, but what do you think?
1) McLaren uses electric fuel and oil pumps that get their power from
batteries. After a quick sum up: Could McLaren use these batteries to power their oil and fuel pumps just temporarely? Like on the straights? Like, by pushing this (Ferrari-protested) button? While these pumps wouldn't get their energy from the batteries they could get it from the engine. Just curious... ;)
Tuomas Vanhanen
Man, did everybody miss it?!? Evidently the marshalls and stewards did. The last time a leader left the track, and re-entered the race, (besides a pit stop), he was disqualified for 'not re-entering the track at the same spot he left' or something to that effect. Remember who that was? ...and where?!?
Raoul Ross
If Shu would of been penalized for his excellent opportunistic pass on Coulthard, I would be much less of an F1 fan today. I can't believe it was ever considered to be a poor maneuver. If a driver can't stay on the racing line and overtake another driver that has totally messed up his entry to a corner "What would be the use of racing after qualifying is over". Maybe Bernie isn't the only jerk out there, maybe it's the press that is always trying to stir up trouble. Please let the men racing the cars decide who is going to win. See ya at the races.
Mike
Besides the huge discussion about the DC - Schumi (for all non german readers - this is the correct German spelling) incident I would like to draw attention to rule changes that should happen not only for '99 but NOW. Please ban this terrible 'X-wings' or 'Tyrell Towers' or what ever you call them from F1 !! Do the front runners have to install them before everybody is complaining ? You can easily explain it with safety reasons. I think everybody saw Jean Alesi losing his right extra-wing during his pit stop in Argentina. Isn't this (no joke) a real threat to the mechanics in the neighbor pit box ? Even R.Schumacher said today in German television though the wings give additional downforce in a very efficient way he hopes they will not be allowed in the future because they look ugly. So, get rid of them as soon as possible.
Raimund Soenning
The dust has cleared from the past three races. There is no doubt that the two title contenders for the 1998 Drivers Championship and Constructor Championship will be Mclaren and Ferrari. The gap has narrowed between the two combatants. The situation has caught fans and drivers off guard. After two races dominated by the silver Arrows there seems again to be light at the end of the tunnel for F1 Fans. After a lack luster performance by the Prancing Horse in the first two races, a shift of momentum seems to be close at hand. The Black Stallion seems to have gotten a new thrust of energy. But questions do remain as to the most important one being who or what has caused this resurgence within the Italian based team. One key element is undoubtedly the new wider front tires made by the Goodyear company. The fact is that the Bridgestone tire company had and still has the upper hand in tire production. This comes to no one's surprise inside the Formula 1 Racing Circle due to the late tire switch by the Benetton Team. But as the last grand prix shows Goodyear are trying everything they can to close the gap between them and Bridgestone. It is said that Goodyear could have even better tire compounds at the next GP in San Marino (Imola). Michael Schumacher said in a recent interview roughly translated from german that he believes that the Mclaren dominance is due to 2 factors 50% tires and 50% car design. A Crucial issue came up during the Grand Prix Of Argentina, driver tactics. The massive confrontation happening on lap five involving no other then David Caulthard, and Michael Schumacher of Mclaren and Ferrari respectfully. The incident happened when Caulthard went wide due to some problems with his car giving Schumacher an opening for an attempted pass. The pass divides the Formula 1 Fans as to the ensuing collision between the Mclaren and Ferrari. Some say that Michael knew that they were going to touch while on the other hand others say it was just a racing incident. If nothing else it created some high drama for all and some unexpected challenges for the Mclaren Team. Here we are three races into the 1998 Formula 1 Championship. As time as proved again and again expect the unexpected in this unpredictable sport. Just about two weeks ago I as I am sure a lot of fans thought that this would be a Mclaren year similar to the ones when the great Senna was at the wheel of his top notch Mclaren. Who knows things may yet turn out to be the return of the past glory years of Mclaren. But it seems somehow fitting that a dark horse emerge from the shadows to challenge the Silver Bullets.
Jan Nottmeier
I read all the comments and I am surprised... Everybody believes that one driver is the best and the other is the worst and one did the right move and the other didn't. Let see the facts: Coulthard made a mistake, but he still had the advantage: his car was ahead of the Ferrari so he had the right to close the door. That's what people say, no? If a car isn't wheel to wheel, the one that is in front has full priority. In that case, Michael was clearly half the way. By the way, have you noticed that when Schumi is in battle with the driver or the team who is his biggest rival to the title there is always a shunt? Of course is a great driver, but why can't he play fair? Maybe because doing it that way at first he wouldn't has been the 94 champion, and who knows the rest of the history if things had go that way. Well, let's just hope that the rest of the championship will be full of challenge and fairplay.
Patrick Verdant
There seems to be a trend in the letters appearing at Atlas F1, and the trend seems strange. This trend seems to center around the idea that wide-open technical competition breeds great racing, and any sort of control over the technical side of the sport, such as in Nascar, results in boredom. Worse, auto racing might become merely "entertainment" (as Karl Anttila wrote). Anyone who has looked at the rules governing F1 cars today knows there is no such thing as open technical development in F1. The areas that research are allowed to pursue are very tightly constrained. When designers do wander off the beaten path, such as Mclaren's work on their braking system, then they run the risk of having that effort nullified after the fact. That's a fact of life in F1, and with good reason, since without some restraint, the richer teams (in dollars and technical skills) would run away (literally) from the poorer teams. Nascar has handled this technical problem by locking down the technical side to a degree that F1 has never used. As a result, with similar technical rules used year after year, there is some possibility that many teams have a chance on any given day to get the tuning right and go out and run at the front. The driver in Nascar makes a huge difference, and the fans can see that. In a year when a good driver manages to get a drive with even a slight technical advantage (as most agree Bill Elliott did during the year he earned his "Awesome Bill" nickname), then the result is a cakewalk. Thankfully, the cakewalks are few and far between in Nascar, but certainly not in F1. I don't watch a lot of Nascar, and I gather there are F1 pursists who wouldn't be caught dead watching stock car racing. You can find it boring because it's run predominantly on ovals, or because of the many caution periods when pace cars are on the track. Please don't argue that Nascar is boring, though, BECAUSE the cars are evenly matched and the racing is very tight. Nascar has drafting, passing and tight racing. This evenness is the same thing that makes motorcycle racing exciting, as John Edwards pointed out in his recent letter. If F1 ever decided to simply set a series of rules and allow for natural development over the course of a few years, we might see some interesting racing. Certainly, 1997 was a better year for F1 than some in recent memory, partly because the standard didn't change drastically between seasons. When that standard does change, generally the dice are shaken, and some team has a chance to run away from the others. We also don't need to go into detail regarding what happens regarding driver safety when the standards are completely juggled between campaigns (none of us will forget 1994, a year when the rules were drastically altered, and some drivers paid way too high a price). I would like to see F1 be a series where the best driver talent is given a stable platform against which it can be measured. F1 is SUPPOSED to be entertaining. True, some money is spent on engine and other component development because some of this technology finds its way to the street (although I haven't seen anything driving the highways around Toronto lately that resembles an MP4/6...). However, the sponsors (Renault, Mercedes, Goodyear and Bridgestone, included) fund the teams because people tune in to watch the race and be entertained. The day that the fans get no joy from watching F1 and switch to another racing series, the sponsors will leave and F1 is dead. Period. All the technical glamour in the world won't help. Would any F1 fan complain if the powers-that-be managed to come up with a rules standard which allowed for wheel-to-wheel racing during every race? Does anyone actually think that passing lanes or some of the other quick-fixes being discussed at the top levels of the sport will help bring racing back? I thought so. Frankly, anyone who wants to thrill to technical regulations and debate performance differences between specs can get copies of the rulebooks, and read them to their heart's content. I'd rather watch racing, and racing like the joust between Villeneuve and Arnoux at Dijon in 1979. Yes, banging wheels and switching the lead back and forth is dangerous. No, I'm not sure that any of the current crop of F1 front-runners could or should be racing this way. But every F1 fan I have spoken to who has watched the final minutes of that Villeneueve-Arnoux fight mentioned their pulse quickening as the corners came and went. It's not that anyone watching that race today doesn't know the outcome: it's the danger involved, and the skill demonstrated by two drivers that both wanted to win, but were mindful of the damage they could do to one another. That was entertainment, and that's what F1 was, and should be. As a last thought, maybe it isn't only the rules and the technology that the powers-that-be should be looking at when they wonder about how to put the racing back in F1. Maybe we should be looking at the drivers, too. Just a thought.
Jon Hykawy
Hello, I'm really surprised of the speculations on Schumacher and Coulthard incident. I think everything was clear: Coulthard made a mistake and Schumacher took advantage of it. Coulthard made a mistake and paid for it. And, Coulthard hit Schumacher, not the other way around. If you would watch this incident more closely, you would notice that Coulthard's driving movements were very similar to Schumacher's in Jerez, but not so obviuos: turning-retreat-turning. So Coulthard knew they could touch. Some say Schumacher also knew this. All drivers know that any overtaking can end up with incident (except if it is made clearly on a straight using a big power advantage of the engine, and who has such an advantage?). Therefore, when overtaking one always faces two questions: How much can I risk? Will opponent risk if I risk? So, let us legislate overtaking and we won't have the only man who is able to overtake - M.Schumacher. P.S. I think that since 1994 Formula 1 is interesting due to Schumi. FIA should pay a salary to him.
Mindaugas Ciurinskas
It was nice to notice that most of the comments after the Argentine race about the Schumacher/Coulthard incident prove the writers saw it the way it really happened not as the few who saw it as they wanted to. Curiously though, only one offered any explanation as to why Coulthard (both then and later when he tried a desperate move on Villenueve) made these errors. The fact is that McLaren have the cars to win the championship but unfortunately not the drivers... a deficiency that was there for all to see and bound to show up sooner or later. I find myself surprised that a team like McLaren made such an error as not going full blast after someone like Villenueve or Hill in the off-season, both of whom could give Schumacher a real battle with the right car.
Charles Reid
Thank the gods (at Ferrari) for a jump start to the 98 season! Schumacher again shows that no matter how good the car you're in, he can still beat you. Coulthard had the chance to lead the world championship but thanks to his good nature and bad reactions under pressure he has blown it. What a disapointment Hill and Fisichella have been so far. Both were considered to be great drivers to have for 98 but have both been upstaged by their team-mates. O.K., so Ralf has yet to finish a GP but considering his 5th place on the grid Hill should have at least been 6th. Poor old Eddie's stuck with a duff driver for 98 and 99. Here's to Ralf - the possible provider of Jordan's first Gp win!
Christopher Byrne
I had the possibility of watching the last f1 race in my country and I feel that it was the most exciting and entertaining of the first three races of the year. I hope there will be more races like this in the championship, and I hope that it happens with no "special" maneuvers of the drivers. At this time I have a point of view, obviuosly about the incident between Coulthard and Schumacher, and I formulated it after seen the race's tape (specially that part) a couple of times to be sure in my apreciation. As far as I can see, in the previous lap Coulthard made the curve that follows the "Ascari" curve widest as he can (at that point Schumacher was behind him for near 2 seconds) and then he returned to the "correct" line to take the next two curves (called "Mixtos"), the first to the left and the other to the right. On the next lap he repeated the maneuver and Schumacher put his Ferrari on the inside. At that point, Schumacher has half of his car in the position of Coulthard (rubber marks on the W and E letters of the right "WEST" ad on the McLaren) when David closed his line over Michael (something foreseeable when you're fighting for a position) but having place to made it more open than he does. And here reach a very conflictive point, where some people say that Schumacher should let David return to his line and others say that Coulthard should leave "some place to go" for Schumacher. I agree with the second option, since the position that Schumacher has when Coulthard begins his move, besides Coulthard could maintain his position because he maintained the inside on the next turn. That's what I see and I understand that Schumacher is on the edge because of his coward maneuver on Jerez de la Frontera last year, but this time I don't want to be unfair and accuse Schumacher just because what he did last year. I also understand how David reacted and I think it was because the pressure he is suffering inside the team, and the competition with his teammate observed during all the weekend. Best regards,
Diego Cassia
Who is the best driver in F1? That particular question arises after every single race... I'm glad that Atlas F1 has many writers, so we at least get various opinions about the issue. Some other sites do have their favourite, which is usually - surprise surprise - the Big Brother. I'm not against debating about who's The Best, but that usually brings out the negative side of most arguments: You have to put someone down in order to "prove" that another driver is better. Sarcasm and humour is good even (and especially) on someone's expense. But mocking...PLEASE...! I must admit that I too have a favourite. Ever heard of a guy called Mika Hakkinen? I don't expect most of you to remember that he has recovered from the tragic racing accident and still goes on driving, and is now even winning races. I still got a huge laugh out of his legendary "phantom pitstop" in Australia! But that was not until a few days after repeating to myself: What on earth was he thinking!!!
Petri Laine
WHERE'S JACK! Last years incredibly talented "Son of Gilles" conquered 97 with the aid of his immense race craft and driving ability (nothing at all to do with the superior Williams of course). Jack's comments in early March this year. on the 98 rule changes:
and of Ferrari:
Oh Jack, my how things can change. (nothing at all to do with the superior Williams of course). In support of Richard Barnes' article "Hitting the Gas" it is true. There is only one driver in the current field who is able to produce consistent podium results regardless of the team/car that he is racing in.
David Farnan
This is specially for anyone who accussed Schumacher for his overtaking move in Argentina... Please wear your glasses when watching F1 or if you haven't have glasses, go and get some. The Schumacher-Coulthard incident was not Schumacher's fault at all. If you looked at the replay, it was really obvious that it was Coulthard who went wide and steered right back at Schumacher. Assuming that if Schumacher was not there and Coulthard went wide, would he had steered right back to the racing line? Remembering that he also had another incident with Villeneuve. Further more, Schumacher passed Hakkinen earlier on the same move and nothing happened... If a driver was to be accused aggressive for the race, it would have to be Coulthard! However, having said that, I did not feel that aggressive was the right word. I believed it was more of an act of frustration combined with human fighting instinct (just like what Schumacher did last year at Jerez). From being a clear length ahead, to making a few mistakes, and found himself being swarmed by another car. That was probably the cause for Coulthard's act. Next time, PLEASE watch carefully before making any comments...
Derek Ngo
Last week I popped into Chater's motoring bookshop and bought a copy of the 1984 F1 season review on video. 1984 was the first full year I watched on TV, and, as you will recall, was the first of the McLaren dominated seasons. Then, as now, there are many parallels. Firstly the engine was German (then a Porsche, now a Mercedes), their Michelin tyres were far superior to the Goodyears (like bridgestone today) they were up against a 2-time World Champion (Piquet, as Schumi is now) in a fast but fragile car (Brabham/Ferrari). However, having watched all 16 races, most of which took place on the classic circuits (remember the Old Kyalami, Dijon, Oesterrichring, Zandvoort?) one thing stood out. Despite having over 1000 bhp from their turbo engines, huge barn-door wings and fat tyres, they still managed to *overtake each other without resorting to contact* (M. Schumacher please take note of the word "without" in this sentence). So, to paraphrase Des Lynam "how do they do that?" Simple: aerodynamics, or lack of them. This was the second year of the "flat-bottom" cars, i.e. no skirts or planks or similar. Grip was then undoubtedly created by the 18" wide rear tyres, which allowed the drivers to pull off spectacular manoeuvres like Lauda down the front stretch at Kyalami, Rosberg almost anywhere (!) Brundle at Detroit and Tambay at Dijon. I draw these parallels to illustrate how far F1 has come in terms of technology, and how far back it's gone in terms of entertainment for the paying spectator. Remember it's our $ that buy the race tickets, and our eyes which sit glued to the screen on Sunday afternoons. Max Mosley has said that the strategy will replace on-track battles as the primary attraction of the sport. Well, to me it's a bit like saying "there'll be a lot of passing & ball control in the World Cup this year, but nobody will score any goals...." F1 needs to sort its act out otherwise it won't be long before we're watching Zanardi, Blundell and Moore racing in the British GP (or the Silverstone 200 as it will be known).
Mark Atkins
What's the difference between what Schumacher did at Jerez last year, and Coulthard did in Argentina. How come Coulthard is not punished in some way or other?
Martin Kusk Langvad
I guess I was just lucky that I could not watch the Fox Sports telecast of the Argentina race "live" at midnight, and so taped it. It sure was a good race. The last time I remember overtaking and attempted overtaking to this extent was 1995 at the Spa (the wet race with Schumacher on slicks, correct the date if I am wrong). The one thing that I cannot take, is the Shumie "ramming" incident. Sure the replays throughout the race look like he went straight into the side of Coultard. But did any of you out there actually see the race? Or did you guys just watch those replays because they were exciting? If you look at the entire sequence from the previous corner, where Coultard first looses it, then goes wide and then comes back from the other end of the track to close Shumacher off -- Coultard should get a kick in butt, and be banned and fined. This, not so much for the racing incident, which one can claim was a racing accident since Coultard had lost control, and came in sharply to regain his position a la Shumacher vs Hill. But this was a clearcut intentional change in line from Coultard, much more so than the Schumacher/Hill incident. Just because a guy did it once last year -- that doesn't mean that even if someone else comes and hits him, it still isn't the other guy's fault. Also, didn't you see Coultard's mess up later in the race too... Any thoughts about that one Miguel?
Raghu
I am very anti Schumacher because I think he is too agressive and will do just about anything to win. But I can't see how he can be blamed for the latest crash with Coulthard. Coulthard went wide and left an opening which Schumacher took and than Coulthard turned in on him. If drivers are not allowed to pass when someone goes wide, the racing will get worse than it is. Its already a procession. Regards,
Bob O'Brien
I'm starting to get really annoyed with all the negative vibes coming from F1 fans on this web site. First everyone complained that the new regulations were resulting in dull racing. Excuse me, but all three races so far have featured some outstanding passing and dramatic racing. The first two races may have appeared dull because McLaren was so dominant, but behind them there was some great racing going on (such as Wurz's excellent pass of Frentzen in Brazil). And can we blame McLaren for putting together such a dominant package? Then came Argentina, one of the most exciting races I've seen in the last few years. Now everyone's complaining about Schumacher's bump with Coulthard. Come on people. It was blatantly obvious even from the live action that Coulthard got wide going into the corner, and Schumacher dived to the inside line. Then Coulthard cut in (whether deliberately or due to loss of control we don't know). Schumacher could have backed off, but he had the line. It was Coulthard's mistake, and he paid for it. Why do you think we haven't heard any complaints from Coulthard himself? Was Schumacher driving aggressively? You bet! That's one of the qualities of a great driver. And if all this isn't enough, this incident is strikingly similar to the Schumacher/Villeneuve mix-up last year, except the roles were reversed. Mitch McCann made that point quite eloquently in his latest column. Yes last year's incident was Schumacher's fault. We all know it, he admitted it, end of story. Let's get over it. But if you place the blame on Schumacher for last year, you must place the blame on Coulthard for this latest event, since he did practically the SAME THING. Why isn't anyone screaming for Coulthard's head??!!! Don't get me wrong, I like DC, but I think Schumacher's getting dumped on here. It was a brilliant, aggressive pass. It's what great racing is all about. It's what we all love about F1, and have been whining that there hasn't been enough of. Now we get it, and some people still can't stop whining. SHEESH!
Jon Oetting
As expected, everytime now Schumacher will even get within a 1/4 inch of anyone else's car, some pseudo-F1 expert will come up with his judgemental one-sided opinion that the German should be disqualified, etc. I am not justifying Michael for last year's stupid mistake against Jacques. It was a stupid mistake, he admitted to it, and he paid for it. And let's not forget it wasn't the first time this happened in F1. Has everyone forgotten the Senna-Prost bloody fights only because one has retired and the other one has sadly passed away? Stupid mistakes like that happen in F1, particularly to drivers that are motivated to win beyond what we normal mortals can imagine. We should condemn them for these actions, but also realize that sometimes being lucid at 200mph while making a decision in a 1/10 of a second is not always possible. So, for anyone to keep screaming at any contact Michael will have with any other car is both biased and a sign of ignorance and stupidity. Expecting from him, like from any of the other drivers to never have contact with other cars is like asking them to quit F1 racing altogether. Furthermore, it's amazing like prejudiced people like Mr. Miguel Gilly are able to see a Ferrari involvement and responsibility for the contact between Michael and David's McLaren. Did Mr. Gilly actually hear Todt scream in the interphone to his driver to hit the Scottsman? Please, Mr. Gilly, do not let your bias come up with pathetic science-fiction scenarios like Ferrari's engineering is behind the competition, so car collisions is the solution. Not only your idea is clearly biased, it's also plain stupid. And Ferrari's engineering has nothing to envy to anyone in F1. I would like to remind you that Ferrari is the only team in F1 that actually builds the entire car, chassis, engine, gear, etc.....this is not like making chocolate, a little milk, a little cacao, a few nuts, you know....... Finally, let's analyze the Argentinian collision between the Ferrari and the Mclaren. David was ahead of Michael, obviously struggling to keep the German behind. Already the lap before he had made a mistake at the same corner and Michael must have made a mental note. As soon as David repeated the mistake and went all the way to the outside of the turn, Michael got inside the door David had left open on his inside. How many drivers on the grid Sunday would have done what Michael has done? the answer is very simple: all of them! In fact, if they wouldn't, they would not be in F1, Mr. Gilly. But there is more. Clearly once Michael made the decision to pass inside David's car, he could only hope that David would make a rational decision. David was left with two possible manouvres at that point: 1) Stay on the outside as a consequence of his mistake, losing position in favor of the Ferrari and hope that he will be fast enough to attack him back on the next lap; 2) Close the Ferrari which at that point has no way of escape and basically cause an inevitable contact between the two cars. David decided for option 2, rationally not the best decision, particularly because in situations like that, 95% of the time, the driver on the outside suffers the worst consequences. Nevertheless, I would never attack David and call him a criminal or stupid. He had 1/10 of a second to make a decision, he like every driver wanted to win, and decided to close on the German. Evidence to support that Michael's move was nothing against F1 rules and fair play is that David did accuse or complain against Michael after the race. Also, Mr. Gilly, your bias brings you to criticize Schumacher for the contact, but have you missed Coulthard's second accident with Villeneuve? no criticisms there? that was just another Formula 1 accident? So, if you have to use bias and prejudice in your comments, please spare us from sharing your opinions. Who holds the record for most wins, points and titles in F1 by knocking the opposition off the course ?. Maybe Michael should move over to NASCAR, I'm sure they would enjoy having him in there bull ring. Dear Schumacher! There are some car racing competitions that encourage car crashes. Leave the F1 and drive there. You will have more fun demonstrating your ego and the F1 funs will thank you.
Danijel Bratina
Once again the Michael bashers are out in force. Sorry guys, not this time. DC choked and that was it. Maybe Coulthard was searching for that blue button? Mika said after the race that he could have pushed harder towards the end but he didn't want to jeopardize his 6 points! Already scared of losing the Championship are we? McLaren no longer have Prost/Senna fighting for the Championship it's David and Mika this time which ought to be pretty funny I think. Maybe the FIA will pull McLarens points from Australia since it was illegally earned using banned equipment.
Doug Sibalik
Dear Atlas, I don't often engage in complaints like this, but I feel compelled. It seems a few of the "Formula One Insider's" comments are a bit absurd, not to mention the ridiculous graphic of Pedro Diniz--it was a waste of the artist'ss time, and a waste download time. Diniz may be "buying" his ride in F1, but he is not the first nor will he be the last to do so... Methinks Niki Lauda once bought his way into the sport. (And I do not intend that as a parallel any deeper than the text). We might educate people as to what the "By-line" is. It certainly isn't a sub-heading. Certainly the imagined dialogue between Ralph Schumacher and Eddie Jordan is puerile at best. It would seem Mr. McCann cannot reconcile his sense of humour with an iota of respect for the drivers in F1. I can appreciate some wit, but this is pointless. I can agree that the Ferrari protests are absurd in their own right, and this may be the most reasonably construed argument of the "Insider's" report. And I can agree that the Argentine GP was entertaining. I too got a kick out of Irvine brake-testing Diniz during qualifying. But not because it was Diniz... A good bet, if Mr. McCann is looking for someone, or something to lampoon: watch F1 coverage on Speedvision! Next time I tune in to Qualifying live, I think I'll turn the volume off. Why? In two words: Derek Daly. I hope he was not that confused when he raced cars... and he never lets Hobbs or Posey get a word in. They are not perfect, but at least they wait until they know which driver they are talking about, or which lap said driver is on before they open their mouth and say something irrelevant. :) Best line of the ITV coverage of the race: Martin Brundle explaing that Alexander Wurz's spin was a sympathy spin because the (I think it was a Tyrrell) car in front of him spun as well. Surely that can be had fun with, without cooking up a graphic (ooh... there's a pun for you).
Bob Pearson
Dear Atlas, Like most people after the Australian Grand Prix I thought this season was going to be very dull, but I'm happy to report that the Argentine Grand Prix has proved me wrong. As at Brazil there was loads of overtaking, but this time one of the moves was for the lead, the cars looked spectacular sliding around, and we had a genuinely competitive race. As regular readers will be aware, I am hardly a Schumacher fan, but I think he was the innocent party as far as the collision with Coulthard was concerned. DC (as the TV commentators are intent on calling him) simply can't defend a line very well (remember France last year). If he runs wide at a corner, and someone comes up the inside of him, then he should realise that he doesn't have the right to drive into them. It seems to me that as the season progresses, the drivers are becoming more confident in their cars and in their ability to outbreak, and dive past cars in front. I was rather amazed that Coulthard despite being in a superior car, had such difficulty in passing Alesi and Villenuve, when other drivers (such as Wurz, Alesi, Schumacher and Villenuve) showed they were able to overtake other drivers whi's cars were similar in performance too their own. I think I shall have to revise my opinion about DC becoming this years world champion. I've heard this arguement about CART being closer and more "real" competition versus F1 for so long now. Very rarely do I see people mention the real elements of a CART race which cause the racing to be close, and in my opinion, artificial. Remove the following 2 elements from a CART race:
...and you'll wind up with a "procession" almost as often as you see in F1. The full course yellows in many cases bring about pit-stops for half the field which places faster cars in the middle of the slower drivers, so after the restart there's bound to be more passing. The fuel limits also cause a driver to conserve at times and reduce his speed. There's no reason in CART for a driver to build up more than a 3-second lead as it'll just use up more fuel and the lead will be nullified by the next full-course yellow. If F1 had the same "artificial competition" rules as CART, it would probably have just as much overtaking. Picture Schumacher, Hakkinen, Coulthard taking a pit stop during a full-course yellow and winding up near the back of the field during a re-start. If F1 had CART regulations this would be a regular occurence and sure there'd be plenty of passing happening on the track. But the CART rules do nothing to prove who the fastest car/driver combination are. Instead they add a big gambling factor to any race where teams who get "lucky" with doing all their pit stops during full-course yellows, and/or conserve fuel to reduce the requirement for an extra stop often win the race. Sorry, I like to see who's the fastest, not the luckiest.
Ken McGrath
I am just following up an email sent on Thursday about your pre-race comments, there's been alot of press hype about McLaren and their new car. Yes they have a good car, yes they have good tryes, but unfortuntaley they have inconsistent drivers. Coulthard and Hakkinen are fine drivers, unfortunately both seem to crack under pressure, as Coulthard did this weekend. The McLarens had a good Winter testing, arguably testing alot harder than most of the teams. This has given them this percieved edge on the last few races. It has also sent a wake-up call to the likes of Ferrari, Williams etc., and you are already seeing the gap decreasing in Argentina. As soon as the Mclaren drivers are under pressure, Hakkinen has a poor qualifying run and Coulthard makes some silly mistakes in the race. If McLaren are to stay strong in the front and be winners for the rest of the year they have a very tough time to keep the momentum generated over the Winter. Michael Schumacher again demonstrated his superb skill by pulling the car to the front row of qualifying and taking the win in a race which should of technically been dominated by McLaren. Personally, my views have been unaltered by the misinformed press hype of McLaren walking this season, they have a top car/package, but can their drivers stay in control when the presssure is on? I don't think so im afraid.
Alan Fraser
Finally! Argentina! Ferrari! A great, great race after so many parades. I can't wait until the next race. Yesterday, I watched the Argentine GP live. My expectations weren't high, having seen both the previous two races this season and having read that the Buenos Aires track is too tight, too bumpy and impossible to pass on. Frankly, I thought it was one of the most entertaining races I have seen in a long time. The McLaren team were quick, but in race trim probably not as quick as Ferrari. There was more passing than I've seen in a long time, and if the bumpy track was the reason that the cars were sliding around the corners, then perhaps other tracks could use a few bumps too. David Coulthard must have thought it the "race from hell", but it was really entertaining and just what F1 needed if it wanted to keep its TV ratings. Maybe that's why he prefers not to "entertain". This led me to think about other races I have watched on tracks deemed to be too tight, and impossible to pass on. The one that springs to mind is the infamous Hungaroring - which gave us possibly the best dry race of the season last year. Remember Hill passing Schumacher for the lead ? Then the A-1 Ring, described by (guess who) David Coulthard as "Monaco without the walls". That too was a superb race. And what of the "great" tracks? Spa, I concede, is just that. Terrific. But did you watch the race at Monza last year? I think the first six cars were within as many seconds of each other, which on paper sounds great. Yet it was the biggest bore of the season bar none. Entertainment? No wonder DC won. I don't want to sound like I'm against David Coulthard - I'm not. I've followed his career since his early Williams seasons, and there have been times when he has been magnificent. Melbourne and Canada last year are examples. But I do question the attitude towards the tight and twisty tracks. Clearly many of the drivers dislike them, and many of the F1 journalists too. Yet they often produce the best races you'll see. Maybe we could tone down the criticism of them a little, and admit that they too can produce great races. Once again Michael Schumacher used brute force to achieve his goal. This time with success. I think the FIA should ban him for at least one race and disqualify him for the Argentinian GP. I'm tired of seeing races decided like this. Before this action, we saw lots of overtaking and excitment. It just kills the fun factor of a race, seeing Schumacher demonstrating his ego. In general, for Ferrari and Schumacher everything seems to be appropriate as long as it brings them closer to the title. The complaining about Mclarens brake system also shows this. They just aren't up to date and compensate engineering with politics. I was once a Ferrari fan (and still like their street cars), but concerning formula one, they lost almost all my sympathies (hey, I live almost in Italy, 2km to the border, imagine this!).
Miguel Gilly
All right, it was cute when Tyrell put the funny little wings on their car but with all the teams doing it now it's just down right annoying. Rule changes got rid of the integral airbox wings of Jordan and McLaren (if my memory serves memory serves me correctly) but left a loophole for these ugly little wings. Word is even Ferrari is considering their use. It's time for the FIA to either close this loophole or allow the use of something more integral to the car like the airbox wings.
Chris Lonie
Hat's off to Micheal Shumacher for finally breaking through the McLaren's dominance. The Argentine Gran Prix was, in my opinion, a thoroughly enjoyable race from start to finish. It appears that many of the drivers are gaining more and more confidance in their cars and are being much more aggresive. I realise that not many of the overtaking attempts were successfull, but I definately would rather see another Argentine type race over Australia or Brazil. Also, I believe that congratulations are in order for both Jean Alesi and Alexander Wurz. Both drivers raced superbly. It was great to see Jean finally get his Sauber working for him. It looked like on several occasions he just might get past ol' Blondie. As for Wurz, he just missed his second podium finish in only his sixth carreer grand prix. After Argentina, I am left with a renewed sense of optimism for the 1998 season. With more races like the one in Buenos Aries there may be hope for Formula One yet. p.s. If the Goodyear tyres have improved so much by increasing the width, why doesn't Bridgestone do the same? Just a thought. Regards,
Chris Gilewicz
I can't help feeling that if the tobacco money disappears AND Grand Prix racing gets "downsized" as a result, the whole thing will get better. Engineers will still make a fast car even if the R & D budget is halved - and if all the teams budgets are halved, we might get some racing. The only people to suffer will be those who have turned it into GP inc., and who are drawing very big salaries. If their salaries are downsized too, maybe they'll go away. Maybe the control of Grand Prix could pass back to those with a genuine interest in the sport. (Someone is going to suggest Jean Marie Balestre and spoil my argument...) I keep watching current Formula One racing, but I am drawn back to re-reading and watching tapes of past races. There IS a difference, hence the pain...
Robert
In response to a couple of different comments by MacLaren/Mika Hakkinen affectienados, my view is that both MacLaren and Mika are/have done a superlative job this year. I take nothing away from either team or driver for their accomplishments. One of the most valuable aspects of this column is its ability to bring enthusiasts on a worldwide basis together to share their views of the sport as it is presented on a week in week out basis. As in life, almost nothing remains the same and virtually every business activity (I classify F1 as a business activity) has it's ups and downs. Thus, I and many other genuine enthousiasts have expressed our frustration with the state of what is supposed to be the premiere motorsport business in the world. One can put their head in the sand or just tell the critics to go away. This approach has been operative for the past 20 years or so... and has nothing to do IMHO with whether the world champion came from the UK, Germany, Canada, or Brazil. Many of Nigel Mansel's race wins were just as boring as their MacLaren conferences. Same goes for all the rest of the boring lopsided races. This thread of thinking is nothing but a red herring and distraction. To improve and go forward, F1 would do well to listen to their vocal, thoughtful critics. In the world of customer service, every complaint uttered reflects 10 not spoken. For every unhappy consumer, you can be assured that the unhappy consumer will tell at least 7 others why not to consume a particular product or service. On the otherhand, the happy customer rarely tells more than 2 other people how satisfied he is. At the end of the day, it is the sponsors who pay the freight. These days if you measure bang for the sponsor buck, NASCAR is the fastest growing sport with the best value for Sponsors. For example, in an interview I saw recently, Jeff Gordon indicated that his Dupont team (for Jeff alone) of 10 cars (2 pairs for five different kinds of tracks) cost about $8 Million/annum to support....this will barely pay the F1 tirebill for a team. In a world of globalization, regardless of the romance and cachet of F1, you can be sure there are executive decsionmakers who carefully weigh where they are going to get the most leverage for their PR expenditures. If they don't do this, you can be sure that someone below them will be working on a "different strategy" to become numero uno. F1 better watch out, not necessarily for CART but for NASCAR... and if you want boring moved to a whole new level and I don't; let's do something in F1. Some may laugh at this suggestion, however a careful examination of the unbridled success of NASCAR over the past 5-10 years, and one may sing a different song. As the sport sheds its southeastern US "old boys" traditions and migrates to the western US, Japan and Australia, will it be long before we have our first European venues, if not already? In the meantime, IMHO GP & World Superbike bike racing provides the best motor-racing entertainment available today.
John Edwards
John: Well put. Fiscally, NASCAR is bigger than F1 and CART combined. Bernie can only sit back and drool.
Paul
Dear Chris: Only today did I get around reading your article titled "That's Entertainment", where you point out many good points about the state of F1 affairs. Being an avid F1 fan since 1965 when Jim Clark visited my native country Finland, and did what a modern day F1 driver is unlikely to do -- he participated in a Formula Junior race with unknown Finnish racers of non-existent budgets. I'm not sure that Jim treated his passion for F1 as entertainment any more than how Ayrton dedicated his all-consuming focus to F1 that brought fear to the hearts of those that raced with him. I would venture to bet that both Jim and Ayrton regarded F1 as a sport that entertained the masses to different degrees. But a sport first with a pedigree unlike any other type of motorsports. Take a look at the biggest joke on earth -- NASCAR. A self-proclaimed form of entertainment that happens to do it by racing cars that are artificially regulated to identical levels of performance. And bear no relationship to what can be bought at your local Ford or Chevrolet dealership. But it does not matter, it's entertainment, not sports, and they go as far as saying so. F1 has to decide what it wants to be: racing first, entertainment second, or, the other way around. Having said, Max et. al. should write and internalize a business plan that executes that vision, regardless whether it attracts 50 billion or 500,000 viewers annually. But let's not forget the roots of F1 because we lack the vision of what F1 represents. Let's leave the cars alone, and work on improving the tracks' safety, while building the challenge that the tracks present to the drivers.
Karl Anttila
Ok perhaps I missed something here..... probably not actually. In the Hungarian GP when D. Hill overtook Schumacher for the lead Schumacher's car was beggining to give him trouble. Aside from the fact that he was in his spare car which was a completely different chassis from the one that he had qualified on, and one that gave him trouble throughout the race. As for all the CART supporters out there... well passing does make CART moderaltely watchable but I think that the 1997 season, despite the slight accident in the end, was the most exciting F1 racing season that I have seen.
Mohammad Abbasi
Would someone please stop the continous curling coverage on Canada's sports network!! Oh wait, thats not curling, that Formula One. Well, lately both seem to bore me to sleep. Thank goodness I decided to tape the majority of the races last year when competition still existed. I think this Sunday I will just pop in last years Luxemburg Grand Prix, certainly not the same Mclarens as we see today. Thankfully though, since I live on the West coast of North America, The last couple of races have had me able to view them live without waking up at the crack of dawn. Although I cant imagine what I will do when the following Grand Prix is in Europe. Should I sleep in, or will the race put me to sleep anyway?
Kelly Batke
|