To Everyone - Page 2

**Peter Mallett** · 6 Nov 2000, 16:33 (Ref:46996)

Quote:

Originally posted by Murph
Peter

Also Peter….. I don’t think I have a problem……but since I’m irritating (like a bad rash)… I’ll go away.

Very good Murph. Well written and informative.

However all the things you wrote were (forgive me) only a repeat of what others have written before or since. Maybe you were plagiarised.

Whilst I take your point about '95, surely even you could not fail to admit that MS was lucky to get away with "nerfing" Hill in '94. You could argue that Hill shouldn't have been there in the first place but to win you have to overtake.

Moving on to '96. I believe that the Williams was no longer the car to have and that the Ferrari was equal to the challenge. This was noticeable at the different circuits where the Williams or the Ferrari were superior to each other, but not on the same track.

I am surprised you didn't state that Mansell was only WDC because he was in the best car at the time. (That was the opinion of the so-called cognoscenti). To use that argument decries the efforts that the driver puts in. Even Williams recognises the achievement of the drivers in making their good cars excellent.

I also fail to see how one can compare Boutsen to Mansell. Patrese was always a good second driver (and a damned fine bloke).

You also seem to think that my basis for suggesting Hill is as good as anybody else and better than many is based on patriotism or just because I like him? Not so. I again draw your attention to his achievements.

However, at the risk of upsetting a few more people, I will state that in his later years your guru Jenks (IMHO) was so far up his own backside he failed to see what was really going on around him.

BTW. I wasn't asking you if you had a problem Murph.

Marshal · 6 Nov 2000, 16:48 (Ref:46998)

Murph, I think I know exactly what Neil C was referring to, and I don't think you inhabit that part of the gene pool....

**Peter Mallett** · 6 Nov 2000, 16:59 (Ref:46999)

Quote:

Originally posted by Marshal
Murph, I think I know exactly what Neil C was referring to, and I don't think you inhabit that part of the gene pool....

Hear Hear.

Neil C · 6 Nov 2000, 17:03 (Ref:47001)

Murph!
I included the "you know who you are" phrase to allow persons such as yourself to be excluded from ranks of the one-sided ranters.

I hope it goes without saying that not only are your posts not two dimensional, they are four or five dimensional due to your unique experience in the sport that only time (insert "old" reference here) and circumstance can provide. Do I have to tell you how fortunate we are that you share your glimpses of F1 history with us? I hope not because I'm not going to!

...but Murph, Schumacher?? Really!

Ralf's Girl · 6 Nov 2000, 19:26 (Ref:47025)

Quote:

Originally posted by WogBoy
But like I said before read James Allen's book on Michael and then I woould like to hear you guys criticise him.

Read it - both versions.

I still criticise, because after I read the first version (believe it or not!) I changed my mind. Then he started his pathetic 'lets-ram-other-drivers-off-or-almost-off-the-track' tactics. And I changed my mind again.

So if you want to hear me criticise him - I will.

Murph · 7 Nov 2000, 06:53 (Ref:47113)

Hey Peter

We are in an agreement on a couple of things here…

#1: Anyone who has taken a couple of hours of their busy day to read one of my “novels”…..knows that I have never absolved Michael for his action at Adelaide….. I’ve used the term “thug” to describe him for not only what he did to Damon there but also what he did to Jacques at Jerez in ’97.

#2: I also fail to see how anyone could compare Boutsen to Nigel….. but…. I remember reading some quotes of Patrick Head detailing just how shocked both he and Frank were when Nige tested Boutsen’s car after the ’90 season. Nige was running 1.5 seconds over Boutsen’s best testing times. They thought Nige might be a “tad” faster then Thierry, but this was a totally unexpected.

Now….. there are a couple of areas on which we don’t quite see eye to eye….

#1: The ’96 Williams was a better package for most of the season than the Ferrari. The championship was between the two Williams drivers. 1996 was the first year in the transformation of Ferrari ….The 310 was the first V10 for Ferrari… the car was completed so late (I think the car only had 700 kilometers of testing before the opener)…..the major problem for the Scuderia was that the engine vibration was such (gearbox cases cracked) the team had to use the rear end and floor section of the ’95 412 T2 for a couple of the early races (they basically used the first 4 races as test sessions) until they could improve the original layout for the European GP at the Nurburgring where Schumacher came in 2nd to Jacques there. Ferrari did meet its stated goal going into the season…. 3 wins (Barcelona, Spa, and Monza)…..

#1A: I will throw in 1997 as well. Again Williams had the best overall package for the first 2/3rds of the season. I like Jacques a lot…… but I always thought that Jacques should have had the WDC wrapped up before Suzuka. Some mistakes her and there (Renault winding down their operation couldn’t have been a help) plus Ferrari got their reliability up and their act together to make a strong run at the end (sorta like a replay of the '91 season .. without the thuggery of course at the end.) but it wasn’t enough. Ferrari thought though that everything was in place for ’98…. But Ron, Adrian, and Mika had a surprise waiting for them at Melbourne…….’sigh…

#2: Why would you be surprised that I didn’t take a crack at Nigel? “Our Nige”… I have been a big Nige fan ever since I meet him in the Montreal paddock back in 1991. An autograph, couple of pictures, and more importantly a few minutes of chit chat.. and from that moment on he made the “my hero” list (gosh.. am I easy) He joined Niki, Ronnie, & Gilles on that most coveted of honors! Nige proved his worth to me when he drove his butt off for Team Lotus in ’84. Yes he did have the best car in ’92… and he won with it. I also developed a deep dislike for one Peter Warr when he ran Team Lotus after Colin’s death…… but getting booted from Lotus was probably the best thing that happened to “our Nige”!….. something to do with going to Williams and playing with those new Honda turbo’s……. Oh…. By the way…… the names of 2 of our cats are….. Nigel and Niki….hmmmmmm wonder where I got that idea (ironically…. Niki had a problem with one of his eyes and had to have it surgically removed….. weird…..)

#3: We differ on Damon……. And on DSJ. I’ll let it go at that.

Peter…. As one “old fart” to another…I have a question for you? Do you believe that the British “enthusiast” press is biased toward British drivers & teams? By “British Enthusiasts Press”.. I mean writers for Autosport, F1 racing, Motoring news, and Motor Sport…… not the daily newspapers. The reason I ask for your input is simple……I want you to tell me if I’m nuts cause I believe that there is a bias. I also can understand how that is economically beneficial for the magazine. Create “interest”= more sales= more advertising= $$$$ Couple of “potential” examples I can think of….When Niki and James were battling for championships in ’76 & ‘77 …. Niki was the “cold calculating computer” while James was the cuddly scamp. (I have been called a lot of things in my life….. but never a cuddly scamp…. ‘sigh). Of course it is interesting that while this competition was all over the mags… Niki and James remained very good friends….. it’s sure not like that today. When Our Nige was going head to head with Nelson Piquet…. Piquet the individual wasn’t attacked…. But most reporters pointed out the “Honda advantage” Nelson enjoyed.. The “Our Nige” phenomena spawned “Our Damon” and now it looks like that the next “Our in Waiting” will be Jenson Button. The December MOTOR SPORT I understand will have a feature article entitled “Jenson Button: The Next Moss or Mansell”.

So what do you think Peter…. Biased or Not? … and if Biased…. Is it a big deal? And what “enthusiasts” magazines do you read fairly regularly?

Take care

Murph

Carla O · 7 Nov 2000, 08:51 (Ref:47123)

Quote:

Originally posted by Murph

Do you believe that the British “enthusiast” press is biased toward British drivers & teams?

i think most press tends to be biased towards drivers of their own nationality. I've only known 2 (or 3 but i think it was 2) Portuguese drivers - Pedro Lamy and Pedro Matos Chaves and believe me, the portuguese press WAS totally biased. PMC never did anything good, he was in a Coloni which was 100000 times worse than the current Minardi's (don't kill me for the comparison Minardifan) and he was in nearly all the news and "oh he drove so well but the car was this and that - and all this in the qualifying, he hardly made it to any races). Pedro Lamy deserved some of the good reviews. it was a pity that accident in Silverstone.

xxx
Carla

CATMAN · 7 Nov 2000, 17:48 (Ref:47210)

So James Allen reckons MS is a good guy great driver smashing bloke or great suash player and writes a book on him! So what! I`ve MS seen him at testing seen him of track on track and I`ve been to all this years races and seen him on and off track. I still think he`s a Flake of a character and no more than an OK driver.
My point of view is no more valid than Mr Allens but then again I`m not looking for book sales to make a living, don`t believe all you read!

Dino · 13 Nov 2000, 05:40 (Ref:48132)

Hello all,

I don't wish to sound like a one sided supporter. But in my opinion, anyone who says that Schumacher is no more than an OK driver, or not equal to or greater than at least a dozen pilots of the seventies is deluding his or herself, perhaps unable to see through their dislkike for the man's character.

Most of us can agree that Ayrton Senna was one of the most talented, and almost certianly the quickest driver in F1 ever. I am not saying that Schumacher is or has ever been better than Senna, but we all saw that Schumacher could always run very close to Senna, and on many occasions, outperform him. He scored higher in the World Championship than Senna in his first full season in F1, in an inferior car. In 93, Senna drove brilliantly, but Schumacher was always on the attack, overtaking Senna on a number of occasions, still as a young driver. In 94, in the races that they competed against each other, Schumacher beat Senna each time. Now, lets assume that in the years they competed against one another, Schumacher performed at a level that was at least 80% of Senna. Knowing how talented Senna was, how do we go from that to just an Ok driver? It doesn't seem to make much sense to me. It defies logic.
Like him or hate him, he is definitely something special.

Dino

Tris · 13 Nov 2000, 08:16 (Ref:48139)

Quote:

Originally posted by Dino

He scored higher in the World Championship than Senna in his first full season in F1, in an inferior car.

LOL!!!

You are kidding right!? Are you trying to suggest that Schumacher was better than Senna with this argument!

In 1992 Schumacher failed to finish three Grand Prix; one due to mechanical failure and two due to accidents

In 1992 Senna failed to finish eight Grand Prix; five due to mechanical failure and three due to accidents.

Out of the six races where they both finished Senna was ahead of Schumacher in five of them!

On average
Senna finished eight races and had fifty points in the championship, thus that makes a mean score per race of 6.25

Schumacher finished thirteen races and had fifty-three points in the championship, thus that makes a mean score per race of 4.08

You can not look at the final tally's in the championship and say that Senna was beaten by Schumacher in 1992. I hope these stat's prove that Senna had kicked Schumacher's arse in 1992.

Tris · 13 Nov 2000, 08:23 (Ref:48140)

Sorry Dino what I meant to say was that you can not compare Senna and Schumacher on staz like that!

I incorrectly suggested that you said that Schumacher was better that Senna. I was wrong and I duley apologise. I just got "off on one" when I saw the comment about 1992. it was like holding a red rag to a bull!

Gt_R · 13 Nov 2000, 13:58 (Ref:48173)

Senna is great, Schumacher is also great...
Both of them are some of the greatest ever drivers...far better than the other mortals of their time!~~

Marshal · 13 Nov 2000, 14:25 (Ref:48175)

You're right of course, Gt_R, all we can ever do really is say who was the best of their time. And Schuey is the best of this time, despite not liking his attitude or portrayed personallity, I do admit he's currently better than the rest of them. I just hope one of the young pretenders out there (Button, JPM etc) can challenge him and extend him further. As he did to Senna, and Senna did to Prost.

chow wei hsien · 13 Nov 2000, 14:53 (Ref:48177)

excuse me everybody......sorry to interrupt, but why everyone keeps talking about Senna, and no one brought up the name of Prost??..... Prost is one of the last Great drivers to leave the sport. but he never got mentioned even once....very rare.

I thought Prost is one of the few that has beaten Senna... in the their McLaren years, both been WDC once. 1-1 score
and...Senna always aimed Prost as the guy to beat when he is rising up while Prost was already on World Championship Winning level then.

I really feel Alain Prost deserves much more attention. he is a Great, as was Ayrton

Marshal · 13 Nov 2000, 15:19 (Ref:48178)

Chow, can I point to my post directly above yours?

Yes I agree, Prost was a great too. I think when they were at McLaren together Senna held a slight edge, but he was at a much hungrier stage of his career.

Dino · 13 Nov 2000, 17:41 (Ref:48194)

Tris,

I appreciate your apology. As you could read, I never tried to insinuate that Schumi is better than Senna. That point, in my opinion, has been over-debated. I was merely trying to show that Schumacher is at least nearly as good as Senna was.

I must admit, I was more than ready to point out your oversight, but I really appreciate that you made the effort to correct yourself. Thank you.

Chow,
I was a big fan of Prost's. I cheered for him against Senna, and I definitely think he was one of the greatest of all time. But I brought up Senna becuase its easier to make a comparison with him to Schumacher, since they competed more directly agaisnt one another. Prost was retired in 92, and in 93, was basically untouchable in the Williams.

Dino

Tris · 13 Nov 2000, 20:11 (Ref:48212)

Hi all!

Dino, thank you for accepting my apology. I have dyslexia and sometimes the words that I though I have read are not the ones in print!

Prost was an amazing driver. If his car was to his liking he was unbeatable, if it was not to his taste he was off “his pace. “ Senna on the other hand, like Schumacher now, was fast in anything. I feel sorry for Prost as he is quite the forgotten man. If Renault had produced a reliable car in 1981 and 82 we could be looking at Prost 7 times WDC!

As far as McLaren go in the Senna / Prost years ... As we all know, Prost would have been WDC in 88 if the scoring system had used all results. To my mind WDCs do not mean that much. Moss nor Gilles Villeneuve won the championship and in my book I put them ahead of the likes of Rosberg, Jacques Jnr, Hill, Piquet and even Schumacher.

Marshal · 13 Nov 2000, 20:29 (Ref:48214)

What it comes down to is those who were clearly class of the field. I'd opinion that since the war, that's been Ascari, Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Villeneuve (you knoiw which one, this is chronological), Prost, Senna and Schumacher. Doubtless there are going to be a few changes when everyone has there personal take on GP history, but I'd say there's the bones of the list there that most could agree on.

The sad thing reading that list is how many were taken away from the sport, just as the next one was coming through. Only really Fangio and Moss, and Senna and Prost really raced against each other for a sustained period of time.