2008 Belgian GP - Race 13/18

Status
Not open for further replies.
Flibster said:
*hammers head against very solid wall*

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!
Click to expand...

Oh dear, that's bad :(

Right sunama, I'll state right now that I did this quickly so there may be errors. But here's how 1993 stacks up with 2008's points system.

25 drivers now have points, including Badoer - so Lola have points now. Only Ken's boys remain uterly pointless. Hill and Senna end up equal behind Prost. Brundle passes Alesi, Blundell passes Herbert, Warwick passes Hakkinen. Lehto, Wendlinger and Andretti end up equal. Barbazza and Zanardi pass Barrichello.

Table now reads thus:

Code: 
Prost          111
Senna          85
Hill           85
Schumacher     68
Patrese           35
Brundle           30
Alesi          27
Berger         24
Blundell       24
Herbert        20
Andretti       15
Wendlinger     15
Lehto          15
Fittipaldi     14
Warwick        10
Alliot          7
Hakkinen        6
Barbazza        6
Zanardi         6
Barrichello     4
Comas           4
Irvine          3
Martini         3
Suzuki          2
Badoer          2
While I've seen tighter championships, I've also seen them rather less so. And I've seen more than a few of those since 1993 :)
 
Last edited:
111 to 85 pts is quite a considerable margin.

Something that the points total dont tell you is the manner in which some of the wins came, for Prost.

I remember, in one GP (I dont know which one). It was very sunny, bright and hot. Prost was in the lead with Hill 2nd. Hill wasnt alowed to pass Prost, so what he did was drop back by a few seconds and see if he could catch Prost up again - almost like a game - which he did, easily. The 3rd placed man was well behind, so the 2 Williams cars were able to drop their pace by around 1-2s/lap and still stay well clear of the rest of the field.

In 2008, you simply couldnt envisage, say Heikki, running 2nd to Hamilton and daring to drop back by a few seconds to see if he could catch up. He simply wouldnt be fast enough to risk such a move.

In 1993, the Williams was so far ahead of the rest of the field that they could back off by about a 1s/lap and still be faster than the 3rd placed man who had just put his fastest lap.

It is quite possible that many drivers had won points in 1993. However, at the front of the field (where most of the interest is), it was a procession. We all knew from race 1, that Prost was going to be World Champion, unless he died in a crash.

At least in 1992, when Mansell dominated, he would go as fast as he could and it was exciting to see such a fast car/driver. In 1993, it was boring because Prost only pushed as much as he needed - he didnt attempt to push the car to the limit. The only excitment in 1993 came when Prost went out and allowed Hill to win races and when it rained, which brought Senna into the fray.

Believe me, 1993 was not an exciting year for F1 racing.

The most exciting years for F1, were perhaps:
1991 (epic battle between Williams and McLaren);
1992 (only to see Mansell break all sorts of records that year);
1988 (Senna vs Prost, who together, won 15/16 races that year, for McLaren); and
2007 (Hamilton vs Alonso, who showed genuine dislike for one another).
 
TheStig1 said:
i hate the current points system should be more reward for winning
too easy to settle for 2nd place but the engine rules play a part in that too
Click to expand...

Yep.

You can totally dominate 5 races in a row, while another driver finishes behind you for those 5 races. The net result is that you only have a 10 pt lead which can be wiped out if your car breaks down in the 6th race.

That points system was brought about to prevent MS from winning the title by large margins and to also give the lower placings some reward for their hard work and prevent those drivers from simply giving up during the race.
 
sunama said:
The most exciting years for F1, were perhaps:
1991 (epic battle between Williams and McLaren);
1992 (only to see Mansell break all sorts of records that year);
1988 (Senna vs Prost, who together, won 15/16 races that year, for McLaren); and
2007 (Hamilton vs Alonso, who showed genuine dislike for one another).
Click to expand...

i would have to throw in 97 and 2000 to that list and 2006 was not bad too i thought with lots of twists and turns
 
Yep, 2006 was good - Alonso vs MS. Alonso finally beating MS and tipping him into retirement.

1997 was Villeneuve's year, but remind me what was special about it?
2000 - I cant even remember what happened that year, give me a hint.
 
sunama said:
Yep.

You can totally dominate 5 races in a row, while another driver finishes behind you for those 5 races. The net result is that you only have a 10 pt lead which can be wiped out if your car breaks down in the 6th race.

That points system was brought about to prevent MS from winning the title by large margins and to also give the lower placings some reward for their hard work and prevent those drivers from simply giving up during the race.
Click to expand...

A driver so complete... the rules of the game had to be changed...
THAT is dominance...
 
sunama said:
Yep, 2006 was good - Alonso vs MS. Alonso finally beating MS and tipping him into retirement.

1997 was Villeneuve's year, but remind me what was special about it?
2000 - I cant even remember what happened that year, give me a hint.
Click to expand...

thought him and schumacher in 97 had a good tussle ending in jerez
2000 was mika v michael which i thought was very good and that race in japan to settle it was brilliant i thought both of them going at it lap after lap
 
sunama said:
snip
Click to expand...

Do me a favour, sunama, and look at who got on the podium at these so-called uncompetitive races being dominated by Williams.


.




Done it? Okay, lets go through it.

You've got both Williams cars, obviously. Senna, obviously. Andretti and Hakkinen each got one in the second car (and that's with the season Andretti was having, and Hakkinen only racing three times). Benetton - Schumacher got a bunch, Patrese even managed a couple. Ferrari - one each for Alesi and Berger despite the car being truly awful. Blundell got two in the Ligier for Christ's sake! As for wins - two teams got nearly all of them, Williams and McLaren. Schumacher got one for Benetton.

Now, lets look at a more recent season with a dominant car at the top. Say.....2002. Ferrari, Williams and McLaren got all the podium positions except a lone one for Irvine in Italy for Jaguar. Wins - Ferrari won the lot aside from one for Williams and one for McLaren.

Hmmm. Yes, I can see why you'd think '93 was less competitive....:confused:

Perhaps it would be fairer to compare '93 to 2000. 2000 was slightly closer at the top (19 pts versus 26). Ferrari and McLaren took all the wins between them. Only Benetton (twice) and Jordan (also twice) were able to make the podium with those two and Ralf's Williams. So still....

The FIA, when they banned all those neat toys from the high-tech era, did so for several reasons. Cost - it really was spiralling out of control. Performance - with some more engine, tyre and aero development, these cars would end up truly terrifying. And competition - they figured it would improve. I'm not sure it did. We got two Schumacher championships, two Williams ones for Hill and Villeneuve, two for Hakkinen at McLaren and then the start of the inexorable Ferrari steamroller. So, still no look in for anyone other than Williams, McLaren, Ferrari or Benetton/Renault since 1984.

Ninteen. Eighty. Four. That's a long time to go without anyone else breaking into the title winners circle. Hope BMW can rectify that sometime soon, since they look the most likely.
 
I think using 2002 as an example is wrong. That season was the most dominant season, by any driver/team.

You are using Michael Schumacher, who happens to be the most complete driver in F1 ever, and taking his best season, as an example to compare with 1993. Not fair.

Yes 2000 is more fair.

You must also remember that in 1993, Prost did not perform at his absolute best. His best was past him. So much so that he retired when that season ended. Had Mansell or Senna raced in 1993's Williams, then they might've lapped every other non-Williams car. Such was the dominance of the Williams - the likes of which we may not see in our lifetimes. Something had to be done. It was done and it worked.

These days, we see races being won by less than 10 secs and drivers taking pole by less than 0.2 secs.

You are using points totals as a guide to how competitive the racing was - I think there is more to it than just points. You have to look at the manner in which races were being won, eg. Prost out in front, with D.Hill watching his back 2 secs behind, following dutifully, easily outpacing everyone else with little effort.
 
sunama said:
You are using points totals as a guide to how competitive the racing was - I think there is more to it than just points.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't. I was just looking at who got points, how many times they got points, and if they were on the podium.

sunama said:
You have to look at the manner in which races were being won, eg. Prost out in front, with D.Hill watching his back 2 secs behind, following dutifully, easily outpacing everyone else with little effort.
Click to expand...

That didn't exactly happen constantly, did it?

France was the first time we saw a Williams one-two that season. Eight rounds in. My, weren't they doing well for such a dominant team? Hill failed to finish in three of those opening rounds - spinning off, brake failure and engine failure being the reasons.

That was the only one-two Williams got all year. They were on the podium together a further five times in different arrangements (one-three twice and two-threes the other times). So, six races where they got both cars on the podium. Out of sixteen. Ten wins tells a story, obviously. But not a complete one. Everyone gets hung up on saying how superior the Williams was in '93 - a few engine failures (Spain, Britain, Italy), some spins, brake failure....they hardly had it all their own way. And when Senna could get the McLaren to perform like a winning car rather than a vegetable cart he invariably beat the Williams cars. Schumacher beat them in a straight fight at Estoril. And all those podiums won by cars who shouldn't have got them if we're to belive you about how utterly dominant and superior and wonderful the FW-15C was :)
 
You are acting as if MS winning in Portugal was down to Bennetton's equality, in terms of car performance.

The Williams cars were dominant. The only cars, to beat them that year were Senna (McLaren) and MS (Bennetton).

MS was on his way to gaining the sort of form that would see him become the most decorated F1 driver EVER. You cant compare him with Prost, who was doing just enough to win the title (which he did, with points to spare).

You also cant compare Prost with Senna, who was very hungry to not only beat his nemesis (Prost), but also prove how good he was. He also wanted to join Williams (which he did, the following year). All this made him totally fired up. Prost, like I said, was going to retire at the end of the year and wanted to do just enough to win the title. No more.

D.Hill was still learning his trade.

With regards to reliability - its true the Williams wasnt as reliable as say the 2002 Ferrari, however, when it worked, it was pretty much unstoppable - beatable only by the drivers who many regard as the best ever - MS and Senna.

I just want to let people know that in 1993, the Williams were able to win races with consumate ease, such that they could reduce their speed by about 1-2s/lap and still say ahead of the rest of the field. Prost's multiple pole positions (13 out of 16) that year - the only time he actually pushed the car to the limit - are a testement to this.

I just looked up on Wiki the winning margins. The first (South African) GP of the 1993, Senna finished 1m 19s behind Prost. And this with Prost not pushing hard. This winning margin would be unheard of in 2008.

The 2nd race of the season saw race leader involved in a freak accident, as he crashed into another car which was spinning off the track in front of him. He had a huge lead. The only reason why Senna won the race was because D.Hill's (huge) lead was eroded due to a safety car.

I could go on race by race, but you get the point.

The non-Williams drivers were relying on the Williams to break down, be involved in freak accidents or hoping for rain to fall. On a dry track with nothing out of the ordinary, the 2 Williams could lap every non-Williams car. Once again, this would be unheard of in this day and age.

The Williams was truly ahead of its time.
 
Edit opps this has already been posted.

As this is still going on, Pat Symonds...

Pat Symonds fears that Lewis Hamilton's Belgian GP penalty, which cost him the victory, has hurt more than just the McLaren driver's Championship campaign.


Hamilton clinched the victory in Spa on Sunday afternoon, however, two hours later was informed that he had been handed a 25-second penalty by the stewards for gaining a speed advantage by cutting a chicane.


The stewards deemed the advantage to have helped Hamilton overtake Kimi Raikkonen and therefore handed him a retrospective drive-through penalty, which dropped him to third in the overall race classification.


The penalty has already been lambasted by many in the media with former F1 driver Niki Lauda claiming it was the "worst decision in F1's history."


This is a sentiment echoed by Renault's director of engineering Pat Symonds who fears it could have a negative impact on F1 racing as drivers opt for caution instead of overtaking.


"As it happened in real time, we were talking on the intercom and said: 'Wow that was definitely a situation where he has to give the place back,'" he told Renault's latest podcast.


"I guess we weren't that surprised when the stewards were found to be investigating it. Having looked at it again, I feel very, very sorry for Lewis. I think he has been very hard done by.


"It raises lots of interesting questions, and I am not talking about 'Are the FIA on the side of Ferrari?' We have to believe that they are impartial, the sport would not exist if we didn't believe that.


"But I think it does call into question (the sport's) philosophy, because everyone is saying we need more overtaking in Formula One, we need more excitement, and we need more personalities.


"And yet it seems to me that everything that actually happens seems to be against that.


"Here we had a great race with people really challenging each other and for why? If it's taken away, then why take that risk?"


The Renault man added that in his opinion Hamilton did every thing right after cutting the chicane as he lifted off the power, allowing Raikkonen to retake the lead.


"To me the facts are quite clear in retrospect. I have had a look at the videos, I've had a look at the published data which shows that Lewis was nearly 7 km/h slower than Raikkonen across the line, you can quite clearly see on the in-car camera that he lets him get completely in front, and in my view Raikkonen just braked very early," Symonds added.


"Lewis went inside him, and if you look at the in-car camera stuff, Lewis drove around the hairpin very easily. He didn't have a big slide, he didn't have to correct it, he hadn't gone in too deep and come out wide, it was a perfectly legitimate manouevre, and it wasn't that much later that Raikkonen went past him.


"This is racing, this is what we want."


As for the stewards' decision being made two hours after the race had been completed and all the fans had gone home, Symonds reckons something needs to be done in order to ensure that decisions are made promptly.


"I think motor racing should be like football, not like cricket," he said. "Let's have action, let's know what is going on in real time, not wait for two days to find out the result."
 
Last edited:
good decision to give penalty. there was 100% of advantage that lewis took and if it was not for him kimi would probably not crash and would have took 1st place.

how ever i would modify that rule. that u should u could take over at least for one corner
 
Last edited:
psychas said:
good decision to give penalty. there was 100% of advantage that lewis took and if it was not for him kimi would probably not crash and would have took 1st place.

how ever i would modify that rule. that u should u could take over at least for one corner
Click to expand...

It was a poor decision. And I missed the part where Hamilton caused Raikkonen to Crash.
 
even the itv twins said he gained an advantage by cutting the chicane 19 other f1 drivers said the same
can we just move on now its clear that it was the right decision
 
sunama said:
You are acting as if MS winning in Portugal was down to Bennetton's equality, in terms of car performance.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't. I simply said he beat them in a straight fight. No rain, no dust, no random badger attacks.

sunama said:
The Williams cars were dominant.
Click to expand...

Don't dispute that. 10 wins in 16 races is about the right mark for dominant.

sunama said:
The only cars, to beat them that year were Senna (McLaren) and MS (Bennetton).
Click to expand...

If by beat them you mean "win races", then yes. If by beat them you mean "finish ahead of them at some races"....

sunama said:
MS was on his way to gaining the sort of form that would see him become the most decorated F1 driver EVER. You cant compare him with Prost, who was doing just enough to win the title (which he did, with points to spare).
Click to expand...

If the Williams was as far ahead of the field as you make out, then a) they'd have gotten rather more than a single 1-2 out of the season and b) Prost (on his way to his 4th title and still pretty handy behind the wheel of a GP car) could have beaten that Ford engined Benetton easily at Estoril.

Do think on - Prost retired when he did because it was clear that Senna was going to Williams for '94, and he couldn't face the prospect of being in the same team as him again. Maybe it was down to knowing that in equal cars Senna had the edge, maybe it was down to the rivalry just being too intense, maybe a bit of both. But he certainly didn't retire because he was past it....

You seem to be hung up on this idea that when I talk of competitiveness I'm talking solely about the front runners. I'm not. Yes, Prost effectively cake-walked the championship. Only Senna could get close, and his car just wasn't up to the task of winning the title. But what I'm saying is that a lot more was going on down the field with mid-pack cars making it up onto the podium quite often despite the gulf in budgets and technology.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom