Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2007 Formula One Thread

JFreak said:
1994-1995 had racing between Schumacher and Hill, but Schumi won because he bent the rules and didn't get caught. Had Senna not died in 1994 that would've been Senna domination again for many years, because 1992-1997 Williams had the invincible car and Senna finally got that in 1994, which ultimately wasn't a good move for him. So, that would have been 7 years of boring F1 had Senna not lost his life. Instead it was only 5 boring years as the Schumi-Hill battles were the most interesting racing since 1990 and old rules.
Click to expand...

Schumi (or rather Bennetton) did get caught in 94, hence the two race ban that kept Hill in the championship in Adelaide. I also don't think Senna would have won in 1994 anyway. Three DNFs in the first three GPs, vs. Schumi's 3 wins. Senna would have been down 30 points to him, and 7 down on Hill.

Also, the best 11 results was only 85-90 and 1970.
 
JFreak said:
Your opinion ;)
Click to expand...

Bernie's opinion as well...for whatever that's worth.

I thought Kimi was the next World Champion after Schu, but the unreliable car robbed him in 2005. But he has some serious competition from Alonso and Hamilton. If he's going to win a title he'll really have to earn it.

At any rate, despite "Stepneygate" we are set for a dramatic finish with a three-way drivers' championship battle.
 
JFreak said:
Me too. Did you know Häkkinen was going to move to Williams in 1993? Too bad Williams had some trouble with FIA and to be able to enter the championship Frank needed to have all other teams' support for participating in the series; but Lotus boss Peter Collins didn't want to let Häkkinen go, so he made an ultimatum: "Want Häkkinen? Come back in 1994. Want to race in 1993? Do not sign Häkkinen." So he was forced to let Mika go to McLaren and take Prost instead.
Click to expand...

The 'trouble' was that someone forgot to lodge registration with the FIA so Williams had to have all the other teams agree to let them race. It was crazy for Lotus because Hakkinen didn't drive for them either. He tested for McLaren most of the year and then got 3 races at the end of the season I think.
 
Counterfit said:
Schumi (or rather Bennetton) did get caught in 94, hence the two race ban that kept Hill in the championship in Adelaide.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was personally Schumi who bent the rules.

As you probably remember, JJ Lehto drove Bennetton at that time too; another finnish driver, who after his career has been a commentator on a TV channel. Anyway, he has many times been asked about the Benetton times, and he has said (rough translation): "There was always something strange going on around Schumi's car and his steering wheel had buttons that only few people knew about. Surprisingly enough, when he had to drive another car [than his own race car] with his own exact settings he was always half a second slower."

This guy finished his Sauber 5th on the famous heavy-rain 1993 South African GP (where the rain master Schumi spun off on lap 39/72). I bet he has no reason to make up stories.
 
Lord Blackadder said:
I thought Kimi was the next World Champion after Schu, but the unreliable car robbed him in 2005. But he has some serious competition from Alonso and Hamilton. If he's going to win a title he'll really have to earn it.
Click to expand...

Yes, but don't forget Kovalainen, Rosberg and Kubica. Those guys will be as fast as their car can be, perhaps they're even able to bo a little further too. Here we have six (relatively) young top drivers that will be battling for the title for some time.

We can forget about Ralf, Jenson, Felipe and Nick. Those have shown to be nice 2nd drivers that don't have "it".

Guys like DC, Fisi, Rubens and Jarno should just go away. The rest I don't have a definite opinion just yet. I hate that Rubens never found his success, he would have sort of earned it...
 
JFreak said:
Guys like DC, Fisi, Rubens and Jarno should just go away. The rest I don't have a definite opinion just yet. I hate that Rubens never found his success, he would have sort of earned it...
Click to expand...

I agree on those four. Button will probably retire with his single win...and I'm also disappointed in Barichello. I guess he was only fast because of Ferrari.
 
JFreak said:
Actually, it was personally Schumi who bent the rules.

As you probably remember, JJ Lehto drove Bennetton at that time too; another finnish driver, who after his career has been a commentator on a TV channel. Anyway, he has many times been asked about the Benetton times, and he has said (rough translation): "There was always something strange going on around Schumi's car and his steering wheel had buttons that only few people knew about. Surprisingly enough, when he had to drive another car [than his own race car] with his own exact settings he was always half a second slower."

This guy finished his Sauber 5th on the famous heavy-rain 1993 South African GP (where the rain master Schumi spun off on lap 39/72). I bet he has no reason to make up stories.
Click to expand...

The story of the 1993 - 1994 Benetton was a good one. When the FIA asked to see all the code from the control systems Benetton refused, saying that they did not trust the FIA secrecy policy. The FIA then called in a military test company and still Benetton refused. At one event the FIA delegate asked to look at the Benetton steering wheel whilst it was plugged into the car. On the LCD there was 12 options, plus a blank entry. When the FIA delegate pressed this button it said "Traction Control Activated". Now this was when traction control had been banned. So I guess it was 1994. When questioned Benetton said it was cary over code from 1993 that could not be removed without a rewrite of the whole software!

One example of when this was used was at the Pacific GP in 1994. After Senna crashed at the first corner he sat and watch Schumacher. At one point he ran wide onto the damp grass at turn 1 and pulled away with no wheel-spin! Hmmm.
 
R.Youden said:
Hakkinen (...) tested for McLaren most of the year and then got 3 races at the end of the season I think.
Click to expand...

Yep. His McLaren debut happened in Estoril. Starting grid was spectacular: First row went to the invincible Williams cars, but then on the second row it was Häkkinen before Senna and not the other way around. People were amazed! And I bet so was Senna. Neither finished the race, but qualifying was something special.

Imagine what could've happened if Senna and Häkkinen had partnered the whole season. First 13 races Senna and Andretti earned 60 points, which is 4.6 points per race. Last 3 races Senna and Häkkinen earned 24 points, which is 8.0 points per race — that even includes one GP which saw both McLarens retire. Maybe the Williams would not have appeared so invincible at all? Remains a mystery.

Too bad the sucker-boy Andretti got to race for the most part of the year. He never qualified in the top two rows and only finished once without being lapped. Surprisingly he achieved one podium finish while one lap behind the winning driver. Earned 7 points in 13 races (only 5 finishes), compared to 4 points for Häkkinen in 3 races (only 1 finish, 3rd place).

This whole 1993 season bugs me because that season McLaren had rather good performance, while reliability problems already begun to lift its ugly head. It would have been nice to see Mika racing in that car instead of Andretti. Mika got the ultimate drive through penalty as he had to suffer 3 utterly disastrous years with McLaren and its engine partners until 1997 they finally got their act somewhat together. Five years of waiting before the reward is rather much, I'd say...
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Kimi obviously decided it wasn't worth waiting for. But can Ferrari give him a title-challenging car, and can he out-drive Fred/Hamilton?
Click to expand...

I think Kimi can outrun either of them on his day, but I don't think he can out race or out think them most of the time. He's superfast but not supersmart if you ask me.
 
JFreak said:
Too bad the sucker-boy Andretti got to race for the most part of the year. He never qualified in the top two rows and only finished once without being lapped. Surprisingly he achieved one podium finish while one lap behind the winning driver. Earned 7 points in 13 races (only 5 finishes), compared to 4 points for Häkkinen in 3 races (only 1 finish, 3rd place).

This whole 1993 season bugs me because that season McLaren had rather good performance, while reliability problems already begun to lift its ugly head. It would have been nice to see Mika racing in that car instead of Andretti. Mika got the ultimate drive through penalty as he had to suffer 3 utterly disastrous years with McLaren and its engine partners until 1997 they finally got their act somewhat together. Five years of waiting before the reward is rather much, I'd say...
Click to expand...

Andretti got screwed in his time with McLaren. He rarely got to test because Ron wanted Mika to do it, or because he had to commute.
 
Counterfit said:
Andretti got screwed in his time with McLaren. He rarely got to test because Ron wanted Mika to do it, or because he had to commute.
Click to expand...

It was somewhat unfortunate for Andretti that he joined F1 in a season when major changes were applied to testing. That did disadvantage him somewhat.

It was entirely his fault that he wasn't prepared to move to Europe though, that was nothing other than a demonstrable lack of commitment to not only his team, but also the sport.

And of course it was somewhat unfortunate that he just happened to be paired with arguably F1's second greatest driver ever too. ;)
 
McLaren under scrutiny

Formula One's governing body has stepped in to ensure McLaren give equal treatment to Fernando Alonso and Lewis Hamilton at the Brazilian Grand Prix.
The FIA is appointing a special scrutineer for the race at Interlagos to ensure there is no favouritism.
Click to expand...

I personally don't get this. To be fair they should put people in each team especially Ferrari where we know there will be 'unfair' treatment for Massa. Alonso is seeming more and more like a cry baby each day.
 
xUKHCx said:
I personally don't get this. To be fair they should put people in each team especially Ferrari where we know there will be 'unfair' treatment for Massa. Alonso is seeming more and more like a cry baby each day.
Click to expand...

Yes, but Ferrari don't claim that their drivers get equal treatment. Nor does any team other than McLaren...
 
Lord Blackadder said:
Yes, but Ferrari don't claim that their drivers get equal treatment. Nor does any team other than McLaren...
Click to expand...

Be that as it may why do they have an external authority backing it up. In fact it is all the more reason why they shouldn't have this imposed on them.
 
I agree that it seems strange that the FIA feel the need to actually get involved, but I was just pointing out that McLaren is the only team where this could happen, since nobody else claims to give their drivers equal treatment...

...But like you said, why does the FIA need to enforce a team policy not (AFAIK) subject to FIA regulation? The only thing I can think of is that Alonso complained that McLaren are in breach of contract somehow.
 
Massa's not in the running for the championship, and has said both this season and last that he would help his teammate however possible (within the rules I presume) if necessary.
That's not the case at McLaren. Neither driver would help his teammate out in this case (and anyone who would expect one of them to is, well, naïve at best), but I think the FIA wants to make sure it's decided on the track at some point, rather than in a back office in the motorhome.
 
JFreak said:
But still, braking is the most intersting aspect to me. Currently brakes are so great that the distance it takes to decelerate the car is close to nothing. If it took hundred meters more to make the car stop, there would also be more variance in when to begin braking. Now everyone brakes at the same spot, which makes overtaking very hard. Change regulations so brakes would lose power! That would mean drivers would have to adjust to the situation, but they surely would. After that, because nobody wants to hit the wall top speed, drivers would begin braking earlier; and that would again give drivers something to "race" about. Currently, you either hit it or miss it, but were the brakes so powerful, things would be a lot more interesting. Someone would be able to drive a turn a little faster, thus being able to brake a little later. Someone else would take it on the safe side and brake a little earlier. Those differences turn into overtaking opportunities more likely than adding one more groove to the tyres.
Click to expand...

The braking ability of the cars is very much relative though.

At the moment the systems allowed in F1 are no where near the absolute optimum obtainable technically speaking, they're very much restricted by the regulations otherwise the braking distances would be reduced even more by the inclusion of larger discs, more exotic materials, active as opposed to passive cooling and more advanced implementations of existing technologies such as A.B.S. and torque-transfer devices.

But as I said, it's relative though... whilst the implementation of steel discs would increase braking distances, they'd still have the optimum braking point like carbon discs and in that respect I don't think it'd make the slightest bit of difference to be honest. Imagine if the FIA allowed the implementations of the technologies I mention above, and the braking ability was reduced by a similar amount as from the transition from steel to carbon, in 10 years time we'd all be saying we should move back from actively-cooled-super-duper-techno-brakes back to plain old carbon because the braking distances would be increased, and that'd lead to greater overtaking opportunities, when really... it wouldn't make much of a difference because it's all relative.

I see where you're coming from, I just don't think steel brakes would necessarily make that much of a difference, when it's really not the brakes that are currently the source of the problems in F1.
 
I'd hate to think what F1 would be like now if they'd continued the development of the supertech cars they were getting to in the 80/90s with ABS and active steering and the like!
 
bartelby said:
I'd hate to think what F1 would be like now if they'd continued the development of the supertech cars they were getting to in the 80/90s with ABS and active steering and the like!
Click to expand...

It'd be intriguing.

In some ways, I'd maybe like to see the return of the Group B ethos... you know, like anything goes. :D
 
iGav said:
It'd be intriguing.

In some ways, I'd maybe like to see the return of the Group B ethos... you know, like anything goes. :D
Click to expand...

Maybe they could have a "No Holds Barred" support race when the teams can get as techy as they like.
 
bartelby said:
Maybe they could have a "No Holds Barred" support race when the teams can get as techy as they like.
Click to expand...

I would love to see that. Watched a program once where the were interviewing people about how the regulations are holding back the progress and if they had their way the cars would have 6 smaller wheels instead of 4 (taller). Would make for interesting viewing. However for that to happen tthe current F1 would disappear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back