Japanese GP

[rustybin]

flemke said:

fidgits said:

flemke said:

Nick_F said:

Massa takes Alonso off, Schumacher wins.

That way MS retires from the top step with his fairytale 8th Championship, Alonso gets nothing to take to McLaren and Renault win the Manufacturers Championship so can still use F1 in their marketing next year.

It's showbusiness, not sport, remember.

Even Ferrari cannot be that low (although one must admit that they have exceeded themselves before!).

If that were to happen, one can hope only that the other 19 drivers would collectively work to take out Schumie too.

Coffee on keyboard monitor moment then...


Of course Ferrari would stoop that low, hell, Schumi's probably offered Massa a couple million Euro's to do it - i imagine he'd do anything to retire as champion...

Well, Phil Hill did win his Championship in '61 because his Ferrari teammate purposefully took out Graham Hill, so I suppose there is a precedent...

I suppose he then deliberately flung himself into the crowd and killed himself and fourteen people for the same reason?

Edited by rustybin on Tuesday 10th October 14:19

[MoJocvh]

rustybin said:

flemke said:

fidgits said:

flemke said:

Nick_F said:

Massa takes Alonso off, Schumacher wins.

That way MS retires from the top step with his fairytale 8th Championship, Alonso gets nothing to take to McLaren and Renault win the Manufacturers Championship so can still use F1 in their marketing next year.

It's showbusiness, not sport, remember.

Even Ferrari cannot be that low (although one must admit that they have exceeded themselves before!).

If that were to happen, one can hope only that the other 19 drivers would collectively work to take out Schumie too.

Coffee on keyboard monitor moment then...


Of course Ferrari would stoop that low, hell, Schumi's probably offered Massa a couple million Euro's to do it - i imagine he'd do anything to retire as champion...

Well, Phil Hill did win his Championship in '61 because his Ferrari teammate purposefully took out Graham Hill, so I suppose there is a precedent...

I suppose he then deliberately flung himself into the crowd and killed himself and fourteen people for the same reason?

Edited by rustybin on Tuesday 10th October 14:19

[flemke]

rustybin said:

I suppose he then deliberately flung himself into the crowd and killed himself and fourteen people for the same reason?

I had the wrong year, you had the wrong protagonists.

The fatal collision at Monza '61 was between Jim Clark and Wolfgang von Trips. Graham Hill had nothing to do with it.

The correct year was '64:

Bandini made several determined dives into the hairpin to pass Hill, earning the Championship no-hoper a shaken fist from the Championship leader. It all ended in tears at the hairpin on lap 31. Enacting the classic racing blunder of two drivers trying to occupy the same piece of track at the same time, the front wheel of Bandini’s Ferrari hit the rear wheel of Hill’s BRM as they negotiated the hairpin. In the opinion of the closely following Jack Brabham, Bandini had tried to overtake at a point where it was impossible. Both BRM and Ferrari spun and recovered. Bandini resumed in fourth place behind his team-mate Surtees. Hill, however, was in big trouble. The BRM had been pushed backwards into the barriers and would not run properly due to bent exhaust pipes choking the engine. A pit stop was required to deal with the mangled exhaust pipes. Any chance of holding third place, and so beating Clark to the Championship seemed to fade completely.


Going into this, the final race of the season, Hill had a 5 point lead over Ferrari's Surtees.
At the end of the day, Surtees was Champion, by one point over Hill.


As I said, when it comes to this sort of thing, Ferrari does have form (and we all know that Michael does!)

Edited by flemke on Tuesday 10th October 18:25

[Pies]

Best Alonso gets his shunt in first

[Nick_F]

It wasn't an entirely serious suggestion, but I confess I don't see much in the current 'ethics' of Formula One to preclude the possibility.

Think NASCAR in the 70's/80's - it's only the additional risks inherent in open-wheel racing and the lack of opportunity outside the first lap that gets in the way of this kind of behaviour in F1.

[rustybin]

flemke said:

rustybin said:

I suppose he then deliberately flung himself into the crowd and killed himself and fourteen people for the same reason?

I had the wrong year, you had the wrong protagonists.

Hill and von Trips drove for Ferrari in the year you cited?

flemke said:

The fatal collision at Monza '61 was between Jim Clark and Wolfgang von Trips. Graham Hill had nothing to do with it.

The correct year was '64:

Bandini made several determined dives into the hairpin to pass Hill, earning the Championship no-hoper a shaken fist from the Championship leader. It all ended in tears at the hairpin on lap 31. Enacting the classic racing blunder of two drivers trying to occupy the same piece of track at the same time, the front wheel of Bandini’s Ferrari hit the rear wheel of Hill’s BRM as they negotiated the hairpin. In the opinion of the closely following Jack Brabham, Bandini had tried to overtake at a point where it was impossible. Both BRM and Ferrari spun and recovered. Bandini resumed in fourth place behind his team-mate Surtees. Hill, however, was in big trouble. The BRM had been pushed backwards into the barriers and would not run properly due to bent exhaust pipes choking the engine. A pit stop was required to deal with the mangled exhaust pipes. Any chance of holding third place, and so beating Clark to the Championship seemed to fade completely.


Going into this, the final race of the season, Hill had a 5 point lead over Ferrari's Surtees.
At the end of the day, Surtees was Champion, by one point over Hill.


As I said, when it comes to this sort of thing, Ferrari does have form (and we all know that Michael does!)

Indeed it is now all quite clear. A crash is a crash unless a Ferrari briver benefits or a Hill is disadvantaged in which case it is a consiracy. Thoroughly proven by the example from a time before messrs Brawn and Schumacher were born

[VladD]

rustybin said:

Indeed it is now all quite clear. A crash is a crash unless a Ferrari briver benefits or a Hill is disadvantaged in which case it is a consiracy. Thoroughly proven by the example from a time before messrs Brawn and Schumacher were born

No, a crash is a crash unless its blatantly deliberate. Now universally known as "Doing a Schui". I know others have done it, but not quite so frequently.

[rustybin]

VladD said:

rustybin said:

Indeed it is now all quite clear. A crash is a crash unless a Ferrari briver benefits or a Hill is disadvantaged in which case it is a consiracy. Thoroughly proven by the example from a time before messrs Brawn and Schumacher were born

No, a crash is a crash unless its blatantly deliberate. Now universally known as "Doing a Schui". I know others have done it, but not quite so frequently.

That's a different debate. A "Schui", formerly known as a "Senna", formerly known as a "Prost" involves taking out you oponent in order to benefit yourself. The move being discussed by Flemke here and on the Brazil GP thread is any other crash from which a Ferrari benefits. This despite the fact that nobody seems to be able to recall an example of Herbert, Brundle, Irvine, Barichello or Massa actually having done so. Slowed up yes, taken out no. That move I believe is called a "Coulthard" and dates from Spa '98.

[flemke]

rustybin said:

That's a different debate. A "Schui", formerly known as a "Senna", formerly known as a "Prost" involves taking out you oponent in order to benefit yourself. The move being discussed by Flemke here and on the Brazil GP thread is any other crash from which a Ferrari benefits. This despite the fact that nobody seems to be able to recall an example of Herbert, Brundle, Irvine, Barichello or Massa actually having done so. Slowed up yes, taken out no. That move I believe is called a "Coulthard" and dates from Spa '98.

???

[flemke]

rustybin said:

Hill and von Trips drove for Ferrari in the year you cited?

Richard,

Now I'm confused (a frequent occurence, I admit).

Yes, P. Hill and von Trips drove for F. in '61, but it seemed that you knew that already.

If you're referring to '64 as the year that I cited, obviously by then von Trips was no longer with us and P. Hill was at Cooper.
I first mistakenly wrote '61 because I knew of the view that a F. driver had taken out G. Hill near the end of the season in order to facilitate a F. teammate's winning the Championship. I had thought that that was to benefit Hill in '61, but in fact the beneficiary was Surtees in '64.

rustybin said:

Indeed it is now all quite clear. A crash is a crash unless a Ferrari briver benefits or a Hill is disadvantaged in which case it is a consiracy. Thoroughly proven by the example from a time before messrs Brawn and Schumacher were born

Another mistaken presumption of mine was that it would be obvious that my comment about "form" was made tongue-in-cheek.

Plenty of people competing at the highest level in motorsport have done dubious and even ignoble things.
To my knowledge, no one here or anywhere else has ever asserted that this misbehaviour was confined to Michael Schumacher or to Ferrari.
Some of us do believe that MS and F. have been involved in a disproportionate amount of it, however, and our cynicism is piqued when some of their fans (not saying that this includes yourself) praise that driver and that team almost unreservedly.

Cheers.

[rustybin]

Your accusation was that a Ferrari number two would be prepared to take out the opposition, that this would be supported by the team, that no less should expected from Massa and finally that him being Brazilian and the race in Brazil we should expect the authorities to be complicit in this.

My observations were that whilst I would have no doubt that Schumacher would be prepared to deliberately end another drivers race, this is far from unique to him and that there is no recent evidence of Schumacher (whilst with Ferrari or Benetton) or any other Ferrari driver being supported by their team mate to the extent of deliberately driving someone off the track. Your generalisations concerning the honesty or otherwise of Brazilians I find somewhat suprising given your previously stated views on Mosley seniors politics. I agree that some people are not prepared to see the faults in those they idolise just as some are not prepared to recognise any achievement of those they vilify.

[flemke]

rustybin said:

Your accusation was that a Ferrari number two would be prepared to take out the opposition, that this would be supported by the team, that no less should expected from Massa and finally that him being Brazilian and the race in Brazil we should expect the authorities to be complicit in this.

My observations were that whilst I would have no doubt that Schumacher would be prepared to deliberately end another drivers race, this is far from unique to him and that there is no recent evidence of Schumacher (whilst with Ferrari or Benetton) or any other Ferrari driver being supported by their team mate to the extent of deliberately driving someone off the track. Your generalisations concerning the honesty or otherwise of Brazilians I find somewhat suprising given your previously stated views on Mosley seniors politics.

You might call this an "accusation" that a (current, I presume) Ferrari teammate would be prepared to take out the opposition:

flemke said:

Well, Phil Hill did win his Championship in '61 because his Ferrari teammate purposefully took out Graham Hill, so I suppose there is a precedent...

but I'm not sure how many other people would. Fair enough, if you choose to construe it that way.

As far as homefield "advantage" and Brazil are concerned, you may recall that incident a few years ago, in Germany IINM, in which Michael got stranded in the gravel trap, but by gesticulating madly to the nearby marshals he managed to persuade them to push him out so that he could carry on.
One might also think about the craziness at Brands back in '76 (wasn't it?) in which the crowd bullied the stewards into allowing Hunt to resume his race, perhaps even illegally in a new car.
There may be many other examples of homefield advantage in F1; I would be amazed if no Italian team had ever been assisted in some way by local sympathies during an Italian GP.
As for Brazil, each of us is free to have his own opinion. Having seen reports of what goes on in many aspects of Brazilian life, I would not be shocked to learn that, just possibly, there was the potentiality that a native son would be looked out for.

rustybin said:

I agree that some people are not prepared to see the faults in those they idolise just as some are not prepared to recognise any achievement of those they vilify.

Glad that we can agree on this point, at least.
If you intended to imply that I am among those who "are not prepared to recognise any achievment of those they vilify", I would only like to say that I posted this yesterday:

flemke said:

Those who criticise Schumacher in the round willingly concede that he has been a great driver and team-builder who was totally committed to his profession and would fight to the chequer in every single race. We have no problem acknowledging that there has been a huge amount to admire in the guy.

Cheers.

Edited by flemke on Wednesday 11th October 17:04

[Derek Smith]

flemke said:

One might also think about the craziness at Brands back in '76 (wasn't it?) in which the crowd bullied the stewards into allowing Hunt to resume his race, perhaps even illegally in a new car.

Bullied? I was there and I clapped and booed. It was all very English. You have an odd view of what makes crazy. The years might well have blurred my memory but I seem to remember that he was banned for taking a short cut into the pits when the race had been stopped. Ignoring such regulations when patently absurd was common in those days.

What were the stewards thinking, trying to ban the homeboy on a technicality? What did they think the crowd had paid for? How many would have paid to watch the Brit GP the following year? Isn't it supposed to be a sport? I mean, it's almost as silly as measuring the width of a car at ground level so as to get the extra half inch of width caused by the weight of the car in order to ban it.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

flemke said:

One might also think about the craziness at Brands back in '76 (wasn't it?) in which the crowd bullied the stewards into allowing Hunt to resume his race, perhaps even illegally in a new car.

Bullied? I was there and I clapped and booed. It was all very English. You have an odd view of what makes crazy. The years might well have blurred my memory but I seem to remember that he was banned for taking a short cut into the pits when the race had been stopped. Ignoring such regulations when patently absurd was common in those days.

What were the stewards thinking, trying to ban the homeboy on a technicality? What did they think the crowd had paid for? How many would have paid to watch the Brit GP the following year? Isn't it supposed to be a sport? I mean, it's almost as silly as measuring the width of a car at ground level so as to get the extra half inch of width caused by the weight of the car in order to ban it.

Bullied, intimidated, strongly influenced?

It is fair to say, is it not, that the crowd's behaviour made the difference and caused the stewards to flip-flop from barring Hunt to allowing him to resume the race?
That was my point - that a driver's racing in his home GP has at times in the past enabled him to receive benefits not available to his alien competitors. Those benefits may have come from a vociferous crowd, from overzealous marshals, or from local officials.

[team underdog]

Did anyone else think the safety car should have been deployed after Albers car scattered its remains over the entry to the final chicane? It would have been the sensible thing to do, as well as giving us a race again. Instead they sent a lone marshall to run out on track to collect a broken driveshaft and I believe Massa picked up a puncture - not good at Suzuka!

Of course, Im not suggsting it was because Ferrari were running one two at the time...

OK I am suggesting that.

[Derek Smith]

I think bullied implies threat of force whereas all I would have done, had my clapping been ignored, would have been to clap some more.

In those days, and for some years, Ferrari frequently managed to get onto the front row of the grid at Monza despite having rubbish cars that couldn't manage fourth at other circuits. There may have been winges from other teams, with suggestions of special engines and such, but it was sotto voce as even they could see the wisdom of having the tifosi in the stands. The crowds could wave their flags and, for a while, believe that the red cars could win. It was a sensible concession that could usefully have been extended to other nations, but as it was virtually only English and Italian cars going head to head, there was little chance of that.

One thing that should be clear is that F1GP is a sport. It doesn't really matter who wins. After all, if it had been wet in Japan, Alonso would have won whether the ferrari engine decided to let go or not. MS was driving tyres. He may or may not be the best driver that there ever has been but what is certain is that his tyres are the best around when it's dry. As they should be as they are bespoke for ferrari. But F1 should, above all else, be exciting, especially for the spectators. Hunt should have been allowed to race and, if he had been found to have been in error, banned later so as not to deprive the spectators of a spectacle.

Ron Dennis is an enthusiast for the sport. I see little of this in the ferrari management. A budgie could cope with being their sporting director, once it has been taught to say, 'whatever it takes'. I accept that others have followed their example, but most seemingly reluctantly. Had ferrari been running Michelin then a way would have been found to obviate the problem of the USGP. But then, had McLaren been running Firestone, a way would have been found to obviate the problem as well. If I had been in the stands at Indianapolis I would not have been back.

It used to be fun. I remember drivers smiling. It has changed and not for the better, but I fear, forever.

I still can't see the problem of letting Hunt drive at Brands following a technical infringement. And I feel I bullied no-one.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

I think bullied implies threat of force whereas all I would have done, had my clapping been ignored, would have been to clap some more...

I still can't see the problem of letting Hunt drive at Brands following a technical infringement. And I feel I bullied no-one.

Interesting question, Derek.

Race officials are not known for their willingness, once they have made a ruling, to reverse that ruling just because the majority of the fans in the seats disagree.
Because in this case they did reverse it, that can only be because either, upon further reflection, they decided that their original ruling had been a mistake, or because they felt overwhelmed by the influence of the crowd.
If you thought that your original ruling was correct, why else would you reverse it?


From the recent book on Hunt:

John Webb
Owner, Brands Hatch

There was indeed nearly a riot. In fact Angela, who'd just been made a director by then, recalls that we were approached by the police who said, "You are about to have a riot on your hands." That was really because the late Anthony Marsh didn't give the crowd the right sort of information. He got them in a rebellious state and the police were quite anxious about it. We couldn't do anything about it. We were the circuit owners but the meeting was being run by the RAC. I don't think we regarded it as terribly serious because British crowds at motor races don't get out of control. It was purely the James Hunt factor. If it had been any two other drivers nobody would have bothered too much.

You were there that day, Derek, I was not.
It does sound to me that the ruling was reversed because of the behaviour of the crowd, who were defending the home favourite.

I'm not saying that Hunt was in the right, or in the wrong, just that the ruling was reversed because it involved the most popular British driver at the British GP.

Cheers.

[Derek Smith]

Thanks for the John Webb quote. It surprised me. My memory is of a group of fans who were upset but still in a good mood. The point about lack of information might not be the organiser's fault as whenever any message came over the tannoy system (pretty poor in those days) everyone booed. (Not such a bad idea nowadays.) It was great fun. I can't think where the police were coming from unless they too were Hunt fans. I was up by Druids so perhaps didn't have sufficient view of the circuit as a whole to give a full description. So perhaps there were stroppy people elsewhere. Or, more likely, just where the polie were. Speaking from experience, many people act up when police are present and then calm down later. It is not unknown for the police to make estimates of the threat level based on what would make their life easier. I know I did.

I think I've been less than clear. My main point is that the stewards should not have banned him in the first place, just used a bit of sense. Once the decision was made then were in a cleft stick.

Is is worth buying the Hunt book? I was a big fan and thought, and still think, of him as a very underrrated driver. He certainly livened up the BBC commentary.

Derek

[rubystone]

There's no doubt that it was people power that got Hunt back on the grid that day. But in an era when F1 was more dangerous than it is now, it's ironic that he effectively risked his life for nothing by taking part in the restart.

I'd recommend Gerald Donaldson's biography of Hunt - a really great read. Hunt was most certainly one of those rare indivudals who knew when it was time to stop racing. It's just a shame that for me, the moral victor in 1976 was actually Niki Lauda.

[flemke]

Derek Smith said:

Is is worth buying the Hunt book? I was a big fan and thought, and still think, of him as a very underrrated driver. He certainly livened up the BBC commentary.

Derek

Derek,

Sorry for the delay.
The Hunt book is not a typical biographical text.
Rather, it is a compendium of recollections and anecdotes. Many are rather vivid, as you might imagine.
The contributors include Mario Andretti, John Watson, Vittorio Brambilla, Richard Lloyd, Tony Dron, Niki Lauda, whatever Hesketh, Bubbles Horsley, Emerson Fittipaldi, Derek Bell, Teddy Mayer, Jochen Mass, Sarah Lomax, Patrick Tambay, Peter Warr, Keke Rosberg, Harvey Postlethwaite, Murray Walker, Helen Dyson and many others.
If you're a fan, I think that you would like it. Twenty pounds; Haynes Publishing.