Senna,Barrichello,Sutil,Bottas

[CoopsII]

He choose to leech off his famous name so he has to deal with that.

So you think without the Senna surname no-one would've worked it out?

This is old. Basically, for people like you relatives of F1 drivers should not enter F1 because they will always have 'leeched' their way in, just like Hill and Villenueve did. Does this apply to just the younger relations or are siblings allowed?

Loada bollocks.

[Wizzie]

I don't think Lotus did.

Hideki Nodo replaced Zanardi and drove at the Pacific GP ( I think) and he did so through sponsorship.

We also had Phillipe Adams gets a few races with Lotus thanks to sponsorship

[Klon]

This is old. Basically, for people like you relatives of F1 drivers should not enter F1 because they will always have 'leeched' their way in, just like Hill and Villenueve did. Does this apply to just the younger relations or are siblings allowed?

Except that's not what I meant with that statement. What I said with that sentence was that if you enter F1 having a famous name and don't decide to emphasise the fact that you are living your own life you will have to live with being asked about your relatives - that might be annoying, but they have chosen to do it that way which is why they don't get my sympathy as far as having to deal with public pressure.

[CoopsII]

What I said with that sentence was that if you enter F1 having a famous name and don't decide to emphasise the fact that you are living your own life you will have to live with being asked about your relatives.

But how can you do that other than turn up and race? Every racing relation that has entered F1 since I started following it, Fittipaldi and Andretti were my first, voiced exactly what you would want them to but it didnt stop outsiders doing the comparisons. It isnt the drivers leeching, its the media and fans attaching their own opinions to them.

I would love a son (or daughter) of Deletraz to join F1 to make my point. Wheras Senna, Hill, Villeneuve, er, Schumacher had to deal with a weight of mighty expectation Deletraz Jr would have to put up with people assuming he/she was, well, a bit shite

[Klon]

But how can you do that other than turn up and race? Every racing relation that has entered F1 since I started following it, Fittipaldi and Andretti were my first, voiced exactly what you would want them to but it didnt stop outsiders doing the comparisons. It isnt the drivers leeching, its the media and fans attaching their own opinions to them.

I would love a son (or daughter) of Deletraz to join F1 to make my point. Wheras Senna, Hill, Villeneuve, er, Schumacher had to deal with a weight of mighty expectation Deletraz Jr would have to put up with people assuming he/she was, well, a bit shite

That is a valid point. Up to certain point you can't do much about it aside from being rude and simply not answering any questions regarding your famous relative but in such a PR-dominated age that is most likely not an option. Heck, maybe I am too unfair to Senna. We will see what he can do in 2012 and how he and his character develop at Williams, seeing as he won't have more than one season to prove himself.

[CoopsII]

Up to certain point you can't do much about it aside from being rude and simply not answering any questions regarding your famous relative.

Funnily enough I think you just described how Jacques Villenueve dealt with things, and it didnt make any difference.

Personally, I like to see the relatives coming through the ranks. It gives old gits like me some continuity and gives us opportunities to trot out anecdotes in the style of Grandpa Simpson.

[Klon]

Funnily enough I think you just described how Jacques Villenueve dealt with things, and it didnt make any difference.

Well, Jacques Villeneuve is a prime example of how I'd want a second-generation driver to be. He gets compared to his relative, but he is also unique for both his achievements and his character. Your point still stands, of course.

Personally, I like to see the relatives coming through the ranks. It gives old gits like me some continuity and gives us opportunities to trot out anecdotes in the style of Grandpa Simpson.

That is true. And I for my part would love a son of a reject to become world champion. Any candidates for that in the minor series?

[CoopsII]

Well, Jacques Villeneuve is a prime example of how I'd want a second-generation driver to be. He gets compared to his relative, but he is also unique for both his achievements and his character.

I agree. Poor old JV gets alot of stick, seemingly because he won his F1 championship in The Best Car. Some fans seem to think that winning a championship in the best car somehow diminishes the win. As if there was once a golden age where people won titles in crap cars or something

[DanielPT]

Personally, I like to see the relatives coming through the ranks. It gives old gits like me some continuity and gives us opportunities to trot out anecdotes in the style of Grandpa Simpson.

That is true. And I for my part would love a son of a reject to become world champion. Any candidates for that in the minor series?

You have the most famous of them all, Kevin Magnussen. Who some say has the potential for great things.

[BlindCaveSalamander]

Well, Jacques Villeneuve is a prime example of how I'd want a second-generation driver to be. He gets compared to his relative, but he is also unique for both his achievements and his character.

I agree. Poor old JV gets alot of stick, seemingly because he won his F1 championship in The Best Car. Some fans seem to think that winning a championship in the best car somehow diminishes the win. As if there was once a golden age where people won titles in crap cars or something

I don't think its because Villeneuve was in the best car, but because it took him much longer than it should have done given the quality of his car, and that he showed little ability afterwards that backed up the fact that he deserved to be in such a good car in the first place (such as not leading a single lap after 1997).

[Wizzie]

Well, Jacques Villeneuve is a prime example of how I'd want a second-generation driver to be. He gets compared to his relative, but he is also unique for both his achievements and his character.

I agree. Poor old JV gets alot of stick, seemingly because he won his F1 championship in The Best Car. Some fans seem to think that winning a championship in the best car somehow diminishes the win. As if there was once a golden age where people won titles in crap cars or something

I don't think its because Villeneuve was in the best car, but because it took him much longer than it should have done given the quality of his car, and that he showed little ability afterwards that backed up the fact that he deserved to be in such a good car in the first place (such as not leading a single lap after 1997).

That being said, his 2000 season was simply sublime and 2006 was, ironically, the one time when he didn't deserve to get the sack by BMW.

[CoopsII]

I don't think its because Villeneuve was in the best car, but because it took him much longer than it should have done given the quality of his car, and that he showed little ability afterwards that backed up the fact that he deserved to be in such a good car in the first place (such as not leading a single lap after 1997).

But thats a nonsense as he took the 96 title fight down to the last race in his first ever season in F1. Also the 98 Winfield Williams was not in the same calibre as the previous two seasons worth of Williams, so not leading after 1997 isnt as black and white as it appears on Wikipedia. Also, he was a (Indy 500 winning) rookie in F1 so how much more he could've done to deserve The Best Car I dont really know.

[fjackdaw]

Well, Jacques Villeneuve is a prime example of how I'd want a second-generation driver to be. He gets compared to his relative, but he is also unique for both his achievements and his character.

I agree. Poor old JV gets alot of stick, seemingly because he won his F1 championship in The Best Car. Some fans seem to think that winning a championship in the best car somehow diminishes the win. As if there was once a golden age where people won titles in crap cars or something

I don't think its because Villeneuve was in the best car, but because it took him much longer than it should have done given the quality of his car,

So he's crap for not winning in his debut year against a pretty decent team-mate?

[FullMetalJack]

Well, Jacques Villeneuve is a prime example of how I'd want a second-generation driver to be. He gets compared to his relative, but he is also unique for both his achievements and his character.

I agree. Poor old JV gets alot of stick, seemingly because he won his F1 championship in The Best Car. Some fans seem to think that winning a championship in the best car somehow diminishes the win. As if there was once a golden age where people won titles in crap cars or something

Last time the champion was not in the best car was 1986, and that was thanks to Mansell's tyre failure.

[Klon]

I would argue that the 2007 McLaren-Mercedes was slightly better than the Ferrari, however, that is a very small margin.

[DanielPT]

I would argue that the 2007 McLaren-Mercedes was slightly better than the Ferrari, however, that is a very small margin.

I think it was the inverse. I can't see Raikkonen (never mind Massa) rising consistently above his machinery, while I can easily see Hamilton and Alonso doing that.

[QuickYoda41]

It was constantly changing from one track to another, but the McLaren was more reliable.

Plus it's obvious it had to be a slightly better package, as they had all the infos Ferrari had and more.

[FullMetalJack]

It was constantly changing from one track to another, but the McLaren was more reliable.

That's my point, in 1986 though, the Williams was clearly the best car on the grid.

[Phoenix]

I don't think Lotus did.

Hideki Nodo replaced Zanardi and drove at the Pacific GP ( I think) and he did so through sponsorship.

Noda never raced at Lotus; he replaced Yannick Dalmas at Larrousse for the last three races of 1994.

And regarding those comments about Jacques Villeneuve's worth, I have to say that it was his attitude what precipitated his downfall. There's no denying he was extremely gifted, but he was never able to turn BAR into a top team despite having the golden opportunity to do so after 2000. They had all the ingredients in place, but Villeneuve was seemingly content with being not a team's number 1, but a spoilt son in a team that was created from scratch for him. The result was there for anyone to see when David Richards took care of the operation in 2003. He was blighted by average cars after 1997, yes, but it shouldn't have been this way. And after being shown the door at BAR, he became an even more mediocre driver and a whinger. And another fact is, for all his talent, he was also inconsistent in 1997 and that meant Michael Schumacher nearly beat him with a much inferior car.

[DonTirri]

I would argue that the 2007 McLaren-Mercedes was slightly better than the Ferrari, however, that is a very small margin.

I think it was the inverse. I can't see Raikkonen (never mind Massa) rising consistently above his machinery, while I can easily see Hamilton and Alonso doing that.

Umm... WHAT?
2003 say anything? Losing the title by a handful of points in a car that was essentially three years old.
or 2009, taking a win in a car that everybody knew wasn't up to the task...
Alonso punching above his weight I'll admit to, while Hamilton hasn't shown a single inkling of that. Hell, the only time he's had a bad car was 2009 and he spent most of it bitching and moaning.

[DanielPT]

I would argue that the 2007 McLaren-Mercedes was slightly better than the Ferrari, however, that is a very small margin.

I think it was the inverse. I can't see Raikkonen (never mind Massa) rising consistently above his machinery, while I can easily see Hamilton and Alonso doing that.

Umm... WHAT?
2003 say anything? Losing the title by a handful of points in a car that was essentially three years old.
or 2009, taking a win in a car that everybody knew wasn't up to the task...
Alonso punching above his weight I'll admit to, while Hamilton hasn't shown a single inkling of that. Hell, the only time he's had a bad car was 2009 and he spent most of it bitching and moaning.

I didn't said he couldn't do it. I said he couldn't do it consistently, i.e., race in race in during a whole season (and everyone knows Raikkonen's humours). 2003 was perhaps the exception that proves the rule and no matter how old the Mp4-17 was (it run 2 seasons) it was a pretty good car and fought with Williams for 2nd best of the grid (probably was 3rd, I'll give you that). Still Raikkonen only won 1 race with it but arguably he punched above the car's weight. In 2009 they had a crap car yes but he only won in Belgium which is Kimi's circuit. But even in that year Massa was outperforming him until Hungary...

About Hamilton, yes he bitched, moaned and... Won! Two races in a crap wagon. Kovalainen not even a podium could get. Either Kovy was utter crap or, most likely, Hamilton punched above the car weight.

[mario]

It was constantly changing from one track to another, but the McLaren was more reliable.

Plus it's obvious it had to be a slightly better package, as they had all the infos Ferrari had and more.

On the other hand it is worth noting that McLaren had to agree not to develop certain components on their car (unspecified components, although several of those are thought to have been related to the braking system) as part of the terms imposed by the FIA on the team.
It also fed into the design of their 2008 car as well, which drew on their 2007 design, which effectively forced McLaren to utilise components from their 2006 car in some areas (particularly for the braking system); as a result, most would say that whilst the relative form of McLaren and Ferrari did vary from one venue to another in 2007 and 2008, Ferrari probably had the slightly better car during that period, or at the very least that the team did not have to compromise in the way that McLaren did when developing their car.

As an aside, when debating the situation of a driver winning a championship in an inferior car, I guess that some might well point towards Alonso winning the championship with the R25 back in 2005, depending on how you define a car as inferior.

[Phoenix]

What about Alonso's title in 2006? The Renault R26 might have been superior for the early races, but for most of the season it was Ferrari having the upper hand, especially after the mass dampers issue.

[Ferrim]

His no-title of 2010 would have been more impressive than his two real ones. I mean, when was the last time that the WDC drove a car that finished outside the top 2 in the WCC? Maybe Rosberg in 1982?

[Phoenix]

His no-title of 2010 would have been more impressive than his two real ones. I mean, when was the last time that the WDC drove the car that finished outside the top 2 in the WCC? Maybe Rosberg in 1982?

Piquet in 1983 is the most recent I can figure.

[Collieafc]

His no-title of 2010 would have been more impressive than his two real ones. I mean, when was the last time that the WDC drove the car that finished outside the top 2 in the WCC? Maybe Rosberg in 1982?

Piquet in 1983 is the most recent I can figure.

I think your right. I was going to say Prost in 86 but the McLaren was 2nd. Williams were just that far ahead.

[DOSBoot]

His no-title of 2010 would have been more impressive than his two real ones. I mean, when was the last time that the WDC drove the car that finished outside the top 2 in the WCC? Maybe Rosberg in 1982?

Piquet in 1983 is the most recent I can figure.

I think your right. I was going to say Prost in 86 but the McLaren was 2nd. Williams were just that far ahead.

Piquet in 83 is right. I think the reason why was because the Brabhams were fast, but not very reliable. Plus Riccardo Patrase had a pretty bad season that year, even though he did win the final race of the season. But still, when you think of 86, Prost's championship win was just excellent. Good srategies, and a little luck got him there in the end. It just shows how much of a good tactical racer Prost was. Even in 87 when the Williams were decimating the field, Prost still managed to chalk out three wins in essentially a three year old car.

[WeirdKerr]

[Klon]

Just fulfilling the F1 rejects standard. However, F1 deprivation has caused to feel pride about the fact that I undeniably have directed and caused this thread derailment.

[Ferrim]

I've added the final line of my signature precisely because of this thread.

Going back to the off-topic (?), Prost had realistic championship chances year every season between 1982 and 1993, with the exceptions of 1987, 1991 (too inferior a car) and 1992 (didn't compete). He won or came agonishingly close to winning the 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1993 championships. That's EIGHT titles. As it was, had he blocked Senna from joining McLaren in '88 he would have won 85, 86, 88, 89, 90 and 91. Heck, he actually outscored Senna even the year he didn't win it! I guess he would have become bored by that point, and retired after 1992, but given he says he only retired at the end of '93 because he didn't want to be Ayrton's teammate again, who knows...

Edited because Phoenix alerted me of a mistake.

[DOSBoot]

Going back to the off-topic (?), Prost had realistic championship chances year every season between 1982 and 1993, with the exceptions of 1987, 1991 (too inferior a car) and 1992 (didn't compete). He won or came agonishingly close to winning the 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1990, and 1993 championships. That's EIGHT titles. As it was, had he blocked Senna from joining McLaren in '88 he would have won 85, 86, 88, 89, 90 and 91. Heck, he actually outscored Senna even the year he didn't win it! I guess he would have become bored by that point, and retired after 1992, but given he says he only retired at the end of '93 because he didn't want to be Ayrton's teammate again, who knows...

He also had a late charge to the title in 1981 as well, and I think he was in contention until two races to the end. So that's nine times he could have gotten a drivers championship. If luck was more favorable to him, I think would have been a seven time champion easily. But nevertheless, I think of his 1986 season as a great underdog win. Plus it wasn't just a blown tire that gave him the win, it was also the fight between Mansell, and Piquet as well. A lot of people seem to forget that Mansell not only had one, but two races he could have gotten the title that year. He could have clinched it in Mexico, all he had to do was finish fourth in that race, but he flushed it away with a bad start and finished fifth.

[CoopsII]

Anyway.

Senna to Williams then. We happy?

[Aerond]

Anyway.

Senna to Williams then. We happy?

Me happy

Now we can close this thread!

[DanielPT]

Anyway.

Senna to Williams then. We happy?

Me happy

Now we can close this thread!

Me also happy. Game over for this thread. By the way, which games have you guys been playing now... Naaaa, just joking. Please, kind moderators, you can close the thread now.

[Klon]

I not happy....
I want more off-topicness!