Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
***Official 2010 F1 thread***
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
Yeah, well that's Eddie Irvine, isn't it. I always found it difficult to take any of his pronouncements seriously, his only claim to fame was a little local difficulty with some guy called Senna or summat - http://www.themagicofsenna.com/senna/suzuka.html
Don't forget he was also famed for being a judge in beauty pagents and shagging the contestants in toilet cubicles.
On the plus side, no-one yet has managed to twist this latest saga round as Yet Another Pro-Ferrari Conspiracy™
Don't worry JRS, if Renault are dealt with in a leniant manner, I will explain the clear link towards Ferrari bias.
Have you got any idea how tough it must have been in '94 to be in the Williams team after Imola (driving the same car, having to step up mid season from No2 to No1 as a British driver in a British team
Face it - Schumacher cheated time and time again, and Adelaide was far worse than what happened in the 97 clicncher (much more dangerous for the other driver) and yet the FIA barely slap his wrist for 97 and do nothing about 94
Without a shadow of a doubt Hill deserved the title in 94 and was cheated out of it wrongly (the Benetton was an illegal car top to bottom - yet they got away with it time and again , of course you would put things on a racing car and yet not actually use them BOL)
Not as difficult as it would've been for Hamilton to go up against the reigning World Champion, who was at the peak of his powers and matching him point for point, in his first season in F1.
If Hill (or anyone else) wants to be World Champion (which Hill eventually became), then they must expect to be thrown into difficult situations and fight on the track with the very best that F1 has to offer.
To say that Hill deserved the WDC simply because Senna died and Hill had to step as No.1 is a joke. Being WDC should mean that you and your car were the best during the course of the season and NOT be awarded in sympathy, which I think is what you are suggesting.
1stly I didnt say that , but because of how the italian law works, that accident rumbled on for years - but in 94 it must have been intense (with that hanging over your head how the *** is anyone meant to race naturally in the same car
Hill was 2nd in the team upto Imola which gave MS a huge advantage to start with
Actually Hamilton had it easy - it was ALL about the racing and nothing else (which he was obviously born to do) it was his natural environment, so completely different to what was going around the Williams team in 94
Still easier to battle when you arent racing an illegal car, and having incredibly dodgy tactics to win used against you imho
edit - it seems that everyone who belittles Hill's efforts in 94' particularly doesnt take a HUGE factor into account, so I stressed it - if he didnt deserve it he wouldnt have got the points he did (and remember if Hill had been team leader from the start of the season, its quite possible he would have amassed enough extra points for Adelaide to be irrelevant anyway)
Last edited:
However, I am quietly confident that the Dwarf will find a way of sweeping everything under the carpet
I'm not sure I see how he can.....this is a matter for the FIA and WMSC, not FOM.
How have team orders reduced cheating
.
As it is easier to spot and thus fia can penalise.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
I'm still not with you; how can team orders make it easier to spot cheating? Makes no sense at all to me.
I think when people are saying 'since team orders' what they actually mean is 'since blatant team orders were banned'.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Alain Prost to take over at Renault F!?
this
I would have thought he'd had his fill of F1 team management in his last stint at the game. Where'd you hear that gem?
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Not where I first heard it but it was certainly in the Guardian yesterday:
Google is your friend
Not where I first heard it but it was certainly in the Guardian yesterday:
Google is your friend
Yes, I can really see him as the most obvious choice. After all, it's not like he was fired by Renault at the end of the '83 season or anythi-.....oh.
Eh, what the hell. Maybe the Grauniad has actually got it right for once.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
Does the Piquet fiasco spell the end for Charlie Whiting?
Mosley may be on his way out of the FIA anyhow, so who cares about him. However, if true, this does go to show just how relaxed the FIA organisers are about blatant cheating.
If Charlie Whiting knew that Renault had instructed Piquet to crash and did nothing about it, doesn't that make him as bad as Briatore & Symonds?
Mosley may be on his way out of the FIA anyhow, so who cares about him. However, if true, this does go to show just how relaxed the FIA organisers are about blatant cheating.
I think you're misreading it. Charlie thought that was what had happened because of the wierd way Nelson crashed but couldn't prove it. He didn't "know".
so why didnt the FIA keep their radio traffic recordings if they already knew?
they had to get all this back from Renault because the FIA had "lost" all their own
Hard to prove without insider info admittedly - but you would think there should have been a more thorough investigation before this by the FIA if they where already aware
