2008 German GP - Race 10/18

[JRS]

Thats exactly what it is, though. Rain seems to cause some drivers to be unable to cope with the conditions, while others tend to adapt better. I believe that the "naturally talented" individuals tend to be quicker in wet conditions, while the drivers who have to work at their driving skills, tend to be unable to adapt fast enough. This is why you see the likes of Hamilton dominating in wet conditions, as he has bundles of natural ability.

Thing is, I'm not sure you need 'natural talent', whatever the hell that may be. Graham Hill was able to drive pretty ******* quickly despite having no real Fangio/Clark/Senna-esque talent. He was 'just' a grafter (except at Monaco, where he was epic) and a damned good one at that. And his son was the same. I'm pretty sure even the most pro-Brit fans would acknowledge that Schumacher was a better GP driver than Damon. But he stuck in there, waited until he had the car to truly fight for the title (much like Mansell and 1992), and proceeded to deliver on his promise.

Erm. MS only won a single race in 1992...did he not?

Yep. In grand style, beating Mansell in the all-conquering Williams and the God-like Senna. In a wet-dry race. Anyone who dares to downplay that result ought to be shot.

By a bazooka.

With a nuclear warhead.

At the time they hired Heikki, they may have honestly believed that he would make a great No.2 driver. This means having the ability to follow your team-leader home. If your team leader crashes out, then its your responsibility to score as many points as possible, in his absence. Its your responsibility also, to win the constructors title, providing that your team-leader does his job (which Hamilton, is).

Unfortunately, the way its worked out is that Heikki just cant cut it. He isnt as quick as Massa, who inexplicably is much maligned on this forum, yet the guy who is consistently slower and scores fewer points, seems to get good support.

I agree that Massa gets a bum deal on this forum (and others, actually). For some strange reason, being near the pointy end of the title race isn't enough for some people. Hey ho.

Now, Heikki. He hasn't delivered. Oh sorry, did you want another 'excuse'? Not happening. It's not as if you'd accept it anyway. Like you apparently didn't feel that a wheel disintegrating, or an electronics malfunction, or his tyre getting punctured by another driver is a decent excuse.

On th eplus side, at least he hasn't driven in to the back of a stationary car in the God-damned pitlane....

After winning the last 2 races, you are saying this.

Actually, I was saying that at the start of the year. Not on here, of course. That would have made peoples heads explode. And I don't want to be arrested for manslaughter.

However, before those 2 races, I doubt you would have said that he was favourite.

Yes, I would. Even after the bone-headed nonense at Canada.

If Kimi goes on to win the next 2 races, with DNFs from Hamilton (not an impossible scenario), then I'm sure your attitude will change.

You think?

For those reasons, I dont believe any single driver is favourite to win a race, before it starts.

Quite right. I believe I stated as much earlier, If I didn't, here's the deal:

1) in 1992 - Mansell, Senna, Patrese or Berger could be relied upon to win. With Schumacher a distinct possibility,
2) In 1993 - Prost, Senna and Hill could be relied upon to win. With Schumacher a distinct possibility.

So how the hell is that different to this year? You've got Hamilton and the Ferrari pairing at the front, with Hamilton (surely) the favourite.

Compare this to 1992, when Mansell, will have qualified 0.5-1.0s faster than anyone else. Its difficult to see anyone else winning the race, barring mechanical failure

But they did, didn't they? Quite a few times. Senna, Berger and Schumacher. Without the Williams cars breaking/falling off the road.

or rain.

I'm sorry, but rain just doesn't count. These are (supposedly) the best drivers in motorsport (probably the best in the world). If they can't cope with a bit of rain....

Similarly, in 1993, when Prost qualified in pole, knowing that Hill would not challenge him for the race win, it was difficult to see anyone else winning, barring mechanical failure or rain.

What about Senna then? Or Schumacher? Or Alesi if his car behaved long enough?

OK, so thats 3 races, Heikki has excuses for. What about the other 7? What about the fact that Massa retired in the first 2 races of the season, yet came back to lead it the WDC?

Are you honestly reading what I type on this damned forum?

Here we go, so you might get it....

Heikki has been diasppointing. It hasn't been all his fault by any stretch, but still - he can, should and must do better.

There. That sunk in now?

That fact is that Heikki has found himself totally outclassed by Hamilton, who has exactly the same amount of experience in F1 as he does.

Well, **** me sideways....

Who the **** is surprised? Really? This is the same Heikki who drove last year in an inept Renault while Hamilton had a proper car to play with.

Seriously. Who is surprised?

Oh, I knew that this was the direction they were heading in as soon as the got rid of Alonso, last year. You dont get rid of arguably, the best driver in F

I'd argue it.

unless you are going to have a serious change of plan in how you operate. McLaren learnt last year, that in this day and age, its too risky to try and back 2 drivers for the WDC - a better strategy is to have a No.1 and No.2 driver and ensure that your No.1 driver gets as many points as possible, without the No.2 driver taking points away from him. MS and Ferrari operated in exactly this way during their domination. The could've chosen a better No.2 driver. Obviously Hamilton is happy as he doesnt have to worry about his own team mate at all, but it doesnt bode well for the constructors title, unless your No.1 driver can almost single handedly win you the Constructors title as well.

Ferrari were 'still' able to win both the contructors and drivers titles in 2000, 2001, 2003 with Rubens 4th, 3rd and 4th respectively. Heikki has time yet to come good for 4th in the championship.

Oh noes, an excuse!!!1111oneoneoneoneeleven

 

[sunama]

Thing is, I'm not sure you need 'natural talent', whatever the hell that may be. Graham Hill was able to drive pretty ******* quickly despite having no real Fangio/Clark/Senna-esque talent. He was 'just' a grafter (except at Monaco, where he was epic) and a damned good one at that. And his son was the same.

OK. Ive raced in go-karts. A lot. I have very little "natural ability". Ie. when I go on a new track, others are a lot faster than me. To this end, there was a track in London that I practised a lot on. I think I mustve done over 500 laps. I then went for a series of races and pummelled the opposition. It was too easy.

This tells me that I have very little natural ability (ie. others were able to go a lot quicker than me, with equal experience. However, by putting in graft/hard work, I was able to overcome this problem.

I also have Formula One simulator (PC games). Its the same story with me. When I race on a new track, I find that my friends (and others online) are able to beat me. But after I have "learnt" the track, I move onto a totally different level and am difficult to beat.

Now, Hamilton is naturally talented. He has bundles of it. This means that in changing conditions, ie. where nobody has been able to "learn" the track in its current configuration, Hamilton is able to use his natural ability to push the car right to the edge. This is the main reason why a Ferrari, for example, could get beaten by a Renault, providing the conditions are ever-changing, as it allows the driver to actually make the difference.

I rate Hamilton very highly as he not only has HUGE natural ability, but also, is super fast on a dry track, where everybody has had a chance to learn the track.

Yep. In grand style, beating Mansell in the all-conquering Williams and the God-like Senna. In a wet-dry race. Anyone who dares to downplay that result ought to be shot.

By a bazooka.

With a nuclear warhead.

Dont forget that in that race, during the dry part, Mansell was dominating. What made the difference was that MS was able to come in for wet tyres a lap earlier than Mansell, as Patrese decided to come in for wets a lap earlier, thus locking Mansell out. However, in saying that, Mansell should've pulled MS back, as the Williams really was the class of the field. That was MS's first ever win and he did it on true drivers' circuit (ie. a circuit that has virutally every type of corner in it and shows up the ability of a driver both in wet and dry conditions).

Actually, I was saying that at the start of the year.

I was unaware of this.

1) in 1992 - Mansell, Senna, Patrese or Berger could be relied upon to win. With Schumacher a distinct possibility,
2) In 1993 - Prost, Senna and Hill could be relied upon to win. With Schumacher a distinct possibility.

So how the hell is that different to this year? You've got Hamilton and the Ferrari pairing at the front, with Hamilton (surely) the favourite.

The difference: in 1992, Mansell was overwhelming favourite to win each race - there is no way you can say that Senna or Patrese were equal favourites with Mansell, to win a race in 1992.

Compare that to this year, where Hamilton, Massa and Kimi are equal favourites to win each race. The pendulum might've swung in McLaren's favour now, but this could change.

I'm sorry, but rain just doesn't count. These are (supposedly) the best drivers in motorsport (probably the best in the world). If they can't cope with a bit of rain....

Like I stated above, natural ability has a lot to do with how well you drive in the wet. I've never driven a kart in the wet, but I have raced in F1 simulations on my PC. If its anything like the real thing, then wet weather racing is VERY difficult. Your breaking points, your accelerating points and even your racing line is different, compared to when you race in the dry. And if the conditions are changing on every lap, this makes it very difficult to find the limit of your car.

What about Senna then? Or Schumacher? Or Alesi if his car behaved long enough?

All of these drivers were renowned for being fast in the wet.

Ferrari were 'still' able to win both the contructors and drivers titles in 2000, 2001, 2003 with Rubens 4th, 3rd and 4th respectively.

This was only because MS was able to win the first few races of each of these seasons. This year, Hamilton hasnt been able to do this, though as the season progresses, he might be able to turn it on.

Also, we have to consider that these days, the points are distributed more evenly. In years gone by 1st place would get you 10pts, 2nd would get you 6pts and 3rd would get you 4, hence, winning the race would allow you to almost single handedly win the Constructors Title. These days, with the points more evenly distributed, its not easy for a single driver to win the Constuctors Title, almost by himself. I'm not sure if in 2000, 2001 and 2003 the point scoring had changed. Perhaps you can remember?

Heikki has time yet to come good for 4th in the championship.

Yeah right. Pigs might fly.
We'll have to wait and see, but Heikki isnt fast enough to outscore the Ferraris. Kubica might be vulnerable, but knowing Heikki, he wont be fast enough to beat a slow-going BMW.

Damn, JRS, these pots are long

 

[FrankJH]

If you are referring to Ross Brawn, then you must understand that firstly, Brawn only arrived a year ago. Secondly, if he does get rid of Button, who will he replace him with, bearing in mind that the team car isnt particularly quick, so as to lure a top line driver. He has no choice but to stick with Button..

And the team is negotiating with Button NOW - 12 months after Brawn has joined - it just wouldnt be happening if Brawn thought that Button wasnt worth keeping (after all why not have RB as the senior driver and AD - who is effectively a Honda driver anyway - as the MUCH cheaper option, if RB was that good while the car gets a lot better in 2009)? But the team have always been planning on keeping the better option for them....

Brawn would have seen well before now if Button wasnt worth keeping after all

Even bringing in Alonso for 2009 would be a waste as there is no way that even Alonso would be able to haul a car so bad up into the podium positions. When Button and Co have developed the car sufficiently enough that they can score podiums, thats when you bring in the likes of Hamilton, Alonso, Kimi or Kubica, but until then you will be just wasting your money..

Alonso was always going to be too costly - considering how much they have to improve the car....infact saying that, consider the fundamental changes to next year's car, they are being described as "complete clean sheets of paper" at the beginning of the design process because of all the rule changes, so every team and driver will be completely equal, but I still think Alonso would be too expensive (and not particularly worth it)

Obviously now that they know what they know, they might not have brought Heikki on board. No team principal wants to bring in a lemon of a driver. But who knows, McLaren's management have shown how weak they were last year, there is no reason to believe that they wouldnt mess up their driver line up for this year or the next.
.

McLaren stood up to Alonso's impetious demands - and that caused all the furore (after all at Ron's admittance , it was the arguement with Alonso that caused the majority of Spygate to happen)

If anything thats showing strength rather than weakness.....

I'm glad someone is finally agreeing with me. It did take quite a few races into the season for someone else to see what I saw quite some time ago though..

Ive always said that - its just only recently that its not worth McLaren fully backing Kovi for a win if LH is 2nd, (Silverstone COULD have changed that if Kovi had kept it with a 1-2) but I honestly think he was bought in to challange Hamilton on an equal basis - and it hasnt worked out (catagorically)

Contracts can be bought out, if you are serious enough. I actually felt that a move for Button would've been good. I still feel that if he is challenged, he will stop trying to shag every bit of skirt he sees and concentrate on F1. His problem is that he has become very comfortable at Honda, turning up to races, finishing out of the points, going home and picking up a nice pay cheque...

Yes its true they can - but all I need to point out is the furore with Button and Williams/Honda - TWICE - thats why most teams will leave that to the VERY last choice imo

Button would make a good No.2 driver for Hamilton, as he tends to make few mistakes and would "bring it home" regularly. I say, he would be No.2, becuase I feel that like Heikki, Button would also been blown away, though not so emphatically.

Another option would've been to keep Alonso for another year and actually manage him. It wouldve been totally doable.

Over a whole season I think Button would do better than Alonso in a balanced team against Hamilton - they would learn a huge amount from each other and actually get on, which was always unlikely to happen with Hamilton/Alonso

THe only reason why Briatore is able to manage Alonso is because he is his personal manager (I think he still is anyway) - and Im not even going to go into that conflict of interest within the Renault team, otherwise I personally think its pretty impossible to "manage" him effectively for a season in the way you imply -

I'm pretty sure even the most pro-Brit fans would acknowledge that Schumacher was a better GP driver than Damon. But he stuck in there, waited until he had the car to truly fight for the title (much like Mansell and 1992), and proceeded to deliver on his promise.

The amount of times he /Ferrari stretched the rules to the very limit and benefited (even just in the years Damon was still driving) makes this a very unbalanced arguement - without the natural consideration of MS driving for a lot longer than Hill did and having each front running team based wholly around him (apart from 92)

Attempting to win two championships by taking the opponant out still isnt correct however many times you point back to Senna/Prost etc

winning a race in the pitlane, not to mention all the times FIA came down in favour of the red cars for unexplainable reasons

Just imagine how different it should have been if Hill had completed the race in '94 - without a doubt 95 woudlnt have been so shockingly in Benetton's favour (even considering the huge amount of pressure Italy where still imo unfairly putting on Williams due to the Senna accident)

MS always had it written in his contract that he was undisputted No1 at Ferrari, Hill NEVER had that, even when he was at Arrows (his nearly win was as good as a championship considering the funding etc)

Benetton and Ferrari benefitted from numerous dodgy decisions by the FIA to win a number of times - funny how no other team benefitted quite as much

 

[rpstewart]

Mmm, hungry....

Sometime after dinner

 

[Skeeter]

Is there some OcUK tradition that I missed? Every GP thread turns into an argument between the same select few users after every race.

All their marketing/sponsorship at the moment is focused on Hamilton and that's what its all about I guess.

You clearly havent been to Spain.

 

[JRS]

Is there some OcUK tradition that I missed? Every GP thread turns into an argument between the same select few users after every race.

My bad. I annoy Memphis by not being madly in love with F1, I annoy Wicksta by being madly in love with NASCAR, I annoy sunama by not thinking that Heikki is crap, and I annoy the rest by not thinking that the blessed Sun shines out of a certain part of Lewis Hamilton's anatomy.

 

[Scottland]

My bad. I annoy Memphis by not being madly in love with F1, I annoy Wicksta by being madly in love with NASCAR, I annoy sunama by not thinking that Heikki is crap, and I annoy the rest by not thinking that the blessed Sun shines out of a certain part of Lewis Hamilton's anatomy.

Jeez, you're just an annoying guy aren't ya

 

[JRS]

Jeez, you're just an annoying guy aren't ya

Yep, I'm terrible.

I even managed to annoy someone at work today, 'cause I wouldn't do their job for them. I'm just impossible to deal with.

 

[NathanE]

Is there some OcUK tradition that I missed? Every GP thread turns into an argument between the same select few users after every race.

There is no arguing it's just friendly discussion? People here are passionate about F1 and like to talk about their views and understand other peoples views etc

You clearly havent been to Spain.

Santander hinted the other week that they'll probably switch to another team when their contract with McLaren expires.

 

[Skeeter]

Santander hinted the other week that they'll probably switch to another team when their contract with McLaren expires.

Nothing new there, Vodafone were a Ferrari Sponsor.

In Spain last year anyone who wasnt a follower of F1 would have thought McLarens line up was Alonso and De La Rosa. All the adverts and posters and everything only included those 2. Lewis was nowhere. The advertising is all based around Lewis in the UK, its completely different everywhere else. I expect its all about Heiki in Finland, and In Brasil Marlboro fags are sold using Massas face, etc etc. Just becuase the UK market gets a lot of Vodafone/Santander/Lewis combinations in advertising, doesnt mean that all the team is about. Its just the combo that sells phones and bank accounts in this demographic.

 

[Wicksta]

I annoy Wicksta by being madly in love with NASCAR

Actually I enjoy all forms of motorsport and you don't annoy me at all, I find you quite entertaining/amusing to be honest.

The only thing that annoys me is that I haven't worked out how to write a proper TM on my Mac yet.