Readers' Comments

Atlas F1

Readers' Comments

Updated: 3 July 1998 French Issue

Boys oh boys, yet another fantabulous race for Jordan. Ralfie had a blinding start - i.e. not losing very many places at all - and went on to drive the wheels off the Jordan. Much to his dismay, the pitcrew were able to cellotape them back on and he was forced to finish the race. He's due to cross the line any day now...

Over to (over the?) Hill, who had a great day, talking to journalists and fans on lap 20. Eagle-eyed readers will notice I haven't yet mentioned Hill's round the Isle of Wight boat race, (note I've tastefully avoided any weak jokes about Hill being "all at sea", "washed up" or even "up for sail"). Be very grateful.

Onto Ferrari and Irvine, who didn't block the McLarens for most of the race - of course not, team tactics being illegal - helping Schumi to stretch his lead (yet more even waaay furtherer). Indeed, apparently he has already won in Silverstone, and was last seen halfway to Suzuka. He should be starting the '99 season any day now.

And don't forget Coulthard, who managed to have a botched pitstop, a non-pitstop, and an extra pitstop, a cup of tea and some biscuits, a quick lie out to catch some rays, and write the first few chapters of his autobiography (tentatively titled "Life in the Pits"); and yet still finish in the points. This man is owed some respect, much envy...and lotsa fuel.

Conspiracy Theory #2 :

Who more than anyone wants to see close racing? FIA, more competitive racing means more viewers, more money... So who's preventing competitive racing by dominating the season, and generally doing their jobs?    McLaren. And who supplies the fuel equipment to McLaren (i.e. Coulthard's) pit? FIA.....

Need I say more?
a) yes
b) all of the above

Finally, Saboteur of the Race award goes this time to Tora Takagi. Last race it was just plain mud, but thanks to the pace of technical advances in Formula1, Tora was able not just to spread oil all over the trickiest chicane on the course, but a nice little smokescreen too. In fact, he scored a perfect ten on the OnCourse Hazard - Cars Racing Off the Pavement scale - also known to the drivers as the OH-CRAP-ometer.

Cheers,

Mike
m.whooley@euro.apple.com


The season has progressed from the beginning. Michael S. remains the supreme driver while Eddie Irvine progresses and the McLaren's find a lower finishing order.  Was this an entertaining race?   Not even close after the flag dropped.

Just more of the same boring product which Bernie & company dole out to the illiterate masses of the world. It's the competition stupid not the cars... and it's drivers that compete. When is he going to do something worthwhile like double the width of all tracks...at minimum ?

Perhaps Bernie should review the Assen Motorcycle 500 GP where the top four finishers were within 1.5 seconds at finish and the top three were within a second. The final lap of the race by Michael Doohan was the fastest lap of the race. Or maybe one of the AMA Superbike races where similarly close and brilliant racing has been going on all season. This level of racing is intensely interesting.

Formula 1 might just as well be a vintage race for all the real excitement afforded fans.

John Edwards
jedwards@mgl.ca


Once again, Schumi has answered all his critics in his own way.....showing once again that no one in Formula 1 comes even close to him. His performance in France can be described only in one way;: Perfect!!!!!. And my joy for the Ferrari one-two is even more intense when I think about the anger and frustration of all the Schumi haters of the world. Cheers!!!!

Fabio Balenzano
Fabio@ABPWORLD.COM


Do you think that the marshalls would have insisted upon a restart if either of the ferrari drivers would have led out of the first corner?

I am unclear as to the reasoning behind this decision. Was the restart due to the incorrect lighting, (amber ), verstappen stepping on his weenie, or the fact that both mercedes drivers had a clean start? Please advise.

Regards,

Bruce Miller
bmiller@qn.net


Dear Atlas F1,

This is the sequence of events during the first start of the French Grand Prix, where Verstappen's car broke down on the grid (all times, in seconds, were estimated from a video recording and are not official):

+0.00s : Verstappen's hand becomes visible to indicate he has a problem
+1.16s : Red lights go out and race begins
+1.49s : Hakkinen appears to start moving
+1.53s : Red lights go back on
+1.68s : Yellow lights go on
+2.12s : Marshals' yellow flags begin to move
+2.59s : Yellow flags can be seen by drivers

The time between Verstappen indicating he had a problem and the start being aborted was 1.53 seconds. In this time the starter made the worst possible decision - instead of holding on the red lights to keep the cars on the grid, or just letting the cars go, the starter switched the lights off and then put them back on once the cars had started moving! If some drivers had slowed down and others hadn't then there could have been a very serious accident.

Surely any marshal along the pit straight should have the ability to hold the start when a driver reports a problem? Verstappen gave 1.16 seconds warning before the start, and yet the start still went ahead. Also why did it take 2.59 seconds for the marshals to start waving yellow flags?

It was nice to see a marshal simultaneously observing both the pit straight and pit exit and warning drivers on the track when a car was about the leave the pits. Why wasn't there a marshal doing this at Canada? And will there be a marshal doing this for all subsequent Grands Prix?

Yours faithfully,

Mark Gledhill
m.v.a.gledhill@exeter.ac.uk


Hi,

Just noticing that both Prost and Jordan have 0 points after the French Grand Prix 1998.

Also, why was the French Grand Prix red flagged because of one stalled car on the grid? This has been yellow flags in previous races, right?

Peter
pjotr@ludd.luth.se


Well, without controversy, without incident, Michael Schumacher's diffuser disappeared into the horizon. This time Williams and Jordan would not be able to place their burdens on the controversial shoulders of the two times world champion. Although, it has been a testament to Jaques' ability that he has kept the williams a rather consistent fifth. Coultard showed us all that, other than Ferrari, most teams haven't done much to close the gap. After all, when you can make four rather botched pit stops and still run back into the points, well....

Irvine demonstrated that he isn't just a pretty Irish face, maybe to Liz he is. But, he's a seasoned race driver in a great car. I'm sure he will be punching in at the Maranello factory next year. It saddens me that other teams aren't as competitive.

We will always have our back markers, but what excitement, even under the current rules, if maybe a couple more teams were closer to the Ferrari and Mclaren teams.

Richard Jefferies
cubed_art@yahoo.com


Dear AtlasF1

Hmmm .. a little quieter GP for you guys at Atlas. Hopefully, a little less German bashing mails this time. Anyways, I suppose some notice should be made to Eddie Irvine's performance so far this season.  A lot of people have been making comments about Eddie's status at Ferrari , that he's some kinda Michael Schumacher cabana boy. Well, these opinions are undeserved. Let's take this weekend for example. Eddie made a wickedly good 2nd start and beat the  McLarens off the line and stayed ahead of two obviously quicker packages. Some may say this was acting as MS's "rear gunner" (a Martin Brundle quote - and yes I know what it may imply which is also untrue). But, can't we allow him to run his own race? He was 2nd and having to fend off Hakkinen for a good portion of the race. Hakkinen not getting by wasn't anything having to do with Irvine, if he wanted the spot badly enough he shoulda tried harder. As far as Eddie goes, he's done a wonderful job this season and deserves a top ride for the future. Perhaps Williams should take a long hard look.

Cecil King
lovebird@mailserv.nbnet.nb.ca


I have 2 responses to the previous Canada Comments.

1. To the fellow who said Fisi would be the next Alesi: If Ferrari's reliability in 94/95 was equal to 97/98, Alesi would have been right in the hunt both years. At least 4-5 races he dropped out in the lead on merit and the car broke, plain and simple. Kind of like McLaren last year isn't it? So Schumacher had to come in to improve Ferrari reliability it seems to me, not outright speed.

2. To the other guy who said that Michael Schumacher is like Gilles .... Just go back annd compare comments from their peers... Keke said, "Gilles was the hardest bastard I raced against, BUT COMPLETELY FAIR". I haven't heard anyone make this comment about Michael, have you?? Doing all you can do to win a race doesn't mean you can't give your competitors racing room.. Ask Alan Jones, Niki, Laffitte, Jody etc etc. Gilles wanted to win races (not championships necessarily), by beating everyone fair and square! MS just wants to win period in my opinion. The only driver who seems to like him is Irvine and I wonder why, but that's another question entirely.... ;-)

Thanks,

Mark Moga
mmoga@spero.ca


Dear oh dear, never have I heard such garbled, nonsensical arguments as those put forward on this page concerning the events in Canada.   Lifetime bans, attempted murder...excuse me, can we get back to sane reality for one minute here?  I'm not addressing the legions of Damon/MS/Jacques fans - each will try to convince you (with a completely straight face) that a tennis ball is square, IF it suits their argument.  Instead, I'm talking to those who have a capacity for reasoned, logical thought.

Basically, Canada was a race of mistakes.  That's motor racing, and it's human nature.  And it's also the reason why robots don't drive F1 cars. But, according to many readers, it was a race of crimes.  Shumie this, Damon that, Jacques the next thing...   However, if we are to talk of crimes, then we must do what any prosecuting attorney does - we have to prove INTENT.  So let's look at the mistakes one by one.

First start - Alex Wurz taking out a few cars, before doing an impressive headstand in the gravel trap.  What were his thought processes at the start - "Aah, let's see how many cars I can take out at the first corner"?   I doubt it.  Not guilty, your Honour.  Next case, please.    Aah, Herr Schumacher Junior - glad to see you in my courtroom again.  What is it this time?  Oh, same case as Herr Wurz earlier.  Okay, acquitted, off you go then.  And try to make it out of the parking lot without incident.

Next up, Msr. Villeneuve.  Attempting to blind the other drivers with tyre smoke?  Hmmm, that's a reach.  Taking a "short cut" at ten miles per hour through a gravel trap?   Sorry, can't see how that constitutes an unfair advantage. Deliberately taking out Esteban Tuerro?  Sorry again, counsel for the prosecution must show a more believable motive than that. Outrageously optimistic overtaking maneouvre to impress home fans?   Well, okay, but that's a crime which carries its own punishment.  You are free to go, sir.

Aah, Herr Schumacher Senior, we meet again.  Prosecution alleges that you "took out" Herr H2F.  You allege that you "didn't see him".   Sorry, not believable, not seeing is no excuse.  So you are guilty of a mistake.  Now let's get to the motive bit.  Let's see...  You had already pitted, and H2F had not.  He is not a championship rival, nor was he in any position to seriously challenge your position in the race.   As both McLarens had already retired, you stood to gain at least six championship points from the race, closing the gap considerably on your silver-shod rivals.   So does prosecution counsel expect me to believe that the defendant would willingly and with INTENT attempt to "take out" a non-threatening rival, putting a certain six (and probably ten) championship points in jeopardy?  Sorry, prosecution, but I must find for the defendant.  He is guilty of making an error of judgment, but Herr Schumacher had FAR more to lose from said error than the aggrieved party, Herr H2F.   So, there is no malicious intent and, like the others, he is guilty of no more than a mistake.  Tell you what, though, let's ignore everybody else's mistakes,and dock Shumie a ten-second stop-and-go penalty.  After all, this is Formula One, and we do believe in treating everybody equally.

Aah, our final defendant - the chinless one.  Long time no see, Mr. Hill. Please take us through your thought processes leading up to fateful incident at the chicane?

"Well, your honour, I was in second, cos I was the only one who hadn't pitted, see?  Anyway, that's not bad for a Jordan, innit?  But I knew I had to pit soon. No petrol, see? Michael had already pitted, was going a lot quicker, and closed up right behind me.  But I figured that, with a lightning stop, I could get into the pit lane, slow to fifty, sit stationary for ten seconds while I took on fuel, crawl down the pit lane at fifty again, and still get out on the circuit ahead of him.  I figured that second place was worth defending - we wuz racing, see?"

'Ah, yes, Mr. Hill.  I seem to remember Mr. Senna in this court a few years ago, accused of the same thing by a certain Msr. Prost.  It seems Mr. Senna veered across the track to block an overtaking maneouvre, almost forcing Msr. Prost into the pit wall.  I gave Mr. Senna a hearty slap on the wrist then, for veering ONCE.  You stand accused of doing it two or three times."

"A mistake, your honour.  Steering was never my strong point.  Apart from braking.  Oh, yeah, and driving fast.  Otherwise I'm okay, though.  But you still have to prove intent."

"Well, let's see.  How's this for a theory?  You have a long-standing and bitter feud with Herr Schumacher.  You KNEW that you had no chance of retaining second place.  However, you were damned if you were going to make it easy for MS.  So you deliberately weaved back and forth, illegally blocking the maneouvre and slowing up the German to benefit a certain Mr. Fisichella, who was leading the race at that time."

Shocked whispers in the courtroom.

"Now why would I do that, your Honour?"

"Because you have an established and well-documented dislike of the German. It is reasonable to assume that you would prefer to have seen the Italian win.  In fact, you would generally prefer to see ANYBODY win, as long as it isn't Herr Schumacher.  So, in effect, you were not "racing".  You were not defending a position.  You were simply being bloody-minded to slow down your long-standing arch-enemy, and hinder his chances of winning.  Is that a fair statement?"

"No, we wuz racing.  Honest Injun."

"Alright, Mr. Hill.  Fair enough, we take you at your word.  But you stand accused of another crime."

"Now what, your honour?"

"Of posing as an ex-World Champion, while simultaneously being outqualified regularly by a less experienced team-mate whose so-called talent is something of a laughing stock in F1 circles."

"Oh, your Honour, that's not fair.  I usually do better than Ralfie in the race."

"Hardly a convincing argument, Mr. Hill, seeing as how your illustrious team-mate customarily chooses to exit the race in a cloud of dust at the first corner.  Nevertheless, can't charge you with anything.  So you are free to go.  But one piece of advice before you go.  I hear that Minardi are looking for a driver to partner Shinji Nakano next year."

"Any chance of a McLaren drive, your Honour?"

"Don't push your luck, Mr. Hill..."

Richard Barnes
richjohn@jhb.lia.net


Comments? Send them to: comments@atlasf1.com