Hill: McLaren move right for Alonso

[leopard]

Having found this article by coincidence:



Former world champion Damon Hill believes Fernando Alonso has made the right decision in switching to the McLaren team for 2007.

The Spanish driver has moved to the British squad after winning two titles in a row with Renault, joining McLaren after they endured their first win-less season in a decade in 2006.

Despite that, Hill believes the move will help Alonso prove that he can make a contribution and win with another team.

"It has been a bold move by him, he's a brave driver and he shows that in every decision," Hill, speaking at the fourth Motor Show Festival in Zaragoza, Spain, was quoted as saying by Marca.

"It's a very risky bet but I think it's the best decision he could have made.

"For a driver it's very important to show that it's him who is making a contribution to the team. When you are in the same team for a long time people might start to think that success is the result of the car more than the driver.

"With this decision, Fernando wants to prove that he can win with another team. It's the same thing Valentino Rossi did when he moved from Yamaha, it's a big risk, but it shows the quality of the man," added Hill, refering to the MotoGP champion who left the powerful Honda team to switch to rivals Yamaha.

Although Hill says it's too early to make predictions for 2007, the 1996 world champion would bet on Alonso to win a third straight title.

"It's still early to talk about favourites. Nevertheless, Fernando is responding better than I had expected initially. If I had to bet money I'd put it on Alonso," Hill added.

[wmcot]

But in retrospect, Hill went from WDC at Williams to midfield at Arrows...I'm not sure he's the best one to judge when it's right to change teams.

As for Alonso, time will tell...

[555-04Q2]

But in retrospect, Hill went from WDC at Williams to midfield at Arrows...I'm not sure he's the best one to judge when it's right to change teams.

As for Alonso, time will tell...

:laugh: Well said mate :up:

[Ari]

But in retrospect, Hill went from WDC at Williams to midfield at Arrows...I'm not sure he's the best one to judge when it's right to change teams.

As for Alonso, time will tell...

Oh that was too easy wasnt it? :p

[ShiftingGears]

But in retrospect, Hill went from WDC at Williams to midfield at Arrows...I'm not sure he's the best one to judge when it's right to change teams.

As for Alonso, time will tell...

Well to be fair it wasn't his choice to change from Williams...

[ArrowsFA1]

Well to be fair it wasn't his choice to change from Williams...
:up:
Having almost won in the Arrows, Hill also then went to Jordan, showing he could win in something other than a Williams, so I'd say he's well qualified to comment on Alonso's move.

It is a risky move. Credit to Alonso for making it.

[fly_ac]

:up:
Having almost won in the Arrows,.

But he did not.



Hill also then went to Jordan, showing he could win in something other than a Williams, so I'd say he's well qualified to comment on Alonso's move.

Did he won any race after Williams?

[Mark]

Did he win any race after Williams?

Yes!


You have to remember with the Alonso move it wasn't "I've just won two world championships, lets now look for a new challenge" it was more like "Holy crap, Renault are going to pull out of F1 and Ron is offering me mega £££, I'm off!"

[Ranger]

Did he won any race after Williams?

You, my good man, need a lesson in F1 history:

The 1998 Belgian Grand Prix. :)

[harsha]

yeah!! it was more based on what alonso thought would give him a better chance for WDC...

[fly_ac]

Yes!


You have to remember with the Alonso move it wasn't "I've just won two world championships, lets now look for a new challenge" it was more like "Holy crap, Renault are going to pull out of F1 and Ron is offering me mega £££, I'm off!"

So what were Hill's excuse when he left Williams? :D

[fly_ac]

You, my good man, need a lesson in F1 history:

The 1998 Belgian Grand Prix. :)

Did Hill win any WDC after Williams, my good man? :)

[Mark]

So what were Hill's excuse when he left Williams? :D

It was like

Frank Williams: Damon, You're fired!
Damon: Bugger.

[Ranger]

Did Hill win any WDC after Williams, my good man? :)

Nope, I don't need a lesson about that. :p :

[fly_ac]

It was like

Frank Williams: Damon, You're fired!
Damon: Bugger.

So would wmcot post be correct, I surely agree with that. :up:

......I'm not sure he's the best one to judge when it's right to change teams.
As for Alonso, time will tell...

[Mark]

Well yes, Alonso is very different from Damon Hill. Hill didn't want to leave Williams, he was forced into it.

If you want to draw a similarity then the best one is with JPM, left a sucessful stint with Williams to join McLaren where I'm sure even he will admit he ended up performing poorly.

[fly_ac]

Well yes, Alonso is very different from Damon Hill. Hill didn't want to leave Williams, he was forced into it.

If you want to draw a similarity then the best one is with JPM, left a sucessful stint with Williams to join McLaren where I'm sure even he will admit he ended up performing poorly.

I weren't drawing any similarity between anyone. The argument were that Hill isn't in the best of possitions to judge, if it is a good move for Alonso to have gone to McLaren or not. I think the best judge of that is Time. ;)

[samuratt]

It is time for Alonso to show if it was the right move or not, and I don't think anybody else than him knows exactly why he left Renault.

Altough i am sure it has something to do with money rather than machinery. Renault was not wiiling to expend more than 12 million € a year inhis salary, and bearing in mind that Kimi (no WDC at all) was already earning 20 million at McLaren he would not consider that fair, and he left.

[SteveA]

Poor chap- how does he manage on 12 million € a year?

[Big Ben]

smaller salary, renault's refusal (at the moment) to commit to the sport, poor form in the second-half... the man had his reasons.... it's interesting to see that a team that won two back to back wcc has difficulties forming a decent line-up.

[OTA]

The exit from Renault was decided before the 2004 season started.

Cheers
David

[savage86]

But he did not.



Did he won any race after Williams?


He didnt win it sir, but he lead the race by 30 seconds!!! and that wasnt because the others all broke down he did it on raw pace.
The only reason he lost was because he got stuck in 6th gear after a £1.50 bit broke.

Could YOU have lead that race in an arrows huh? HUH? :P

[tinchote]

The exit from Renault was decided before the 2004 season started.

Cheers
David


2004??? Based on what? :confused:

[ClarkFan]

It was like

Frank Williams: Damon, You're fired!
Damon: Bugger.

Subsequent conversation:
Adrian Newey: Damon won't be testing my designs any more? I quit!
Frank Williams: Bugger.

ClarkFan

[Hawkmoon]

Subsequent conversation:
Adrian Newey: Damon won't be testing my designs any more? I quit!
Frank Williams: Bugger.

ClarkFan

I think it went more like this...

Ron Dennis: Adrian, what's ol' Frank paying you?
Adrian Newey: A sh!te load, why?
Ron: I'll pay you a sh!te load x 2. How's that sound?
Adrian: Great! Frank, I quit!
Frank Williams: Bugger.

I think Alonso's deal went somewhat the same...

Ron Dennis: Fernando, what's ol' Flavio paying you?
Fernando Alonso: A sh!te load, why?
Ron: I'll pay you a sh!te load x 2. How's that sound?
Fernando: Great! Flavio, I quit! Stick you're management deal you know where!
Flavio Briatore: Bugger.

But then again, I'm a cynic. ;)

[leopard]

He was supposed to go to Ferrari :-p

Unluckily he said it will never happen, instead of keep staying at Renault i'd rather to say McLaren is the right move

I think Damon Hill have commented Alonso's move objectively

[fly_ac]

You, my good man, need a lesson in F1 history:

The 1998 Belgian Grand Prix. :)

Ohhh 1 more question, how many cars completed that race. :eek:

[fly_ac]

He didnt win it sir, but he lead the race by 30 seconds!!! and that wasnt because the others all broke down he did it on raw pace.
The only reason he lost was because he got stuck in 6th gear after a £1.50 bit broke.
Excuses, Excuses and more Excuses


Could YOU have lead that race in an arrows huh? HUH? :P

I have seen a Minardi lead a race, so I guess anything is possible, huh? huh? :eek:

[ArrowsFA1]

fly_ac, if you'd like to continue to discussion the abilities of Damon Hill then I'd suggest you take the discussion to History and Nostalgia (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=111).

[OTA]

Alonso took the decission of leaving Renault, first, in the basis that he did not agree with the year he spend in testing, right or wrong is another thing, but he sure was not happy about it.
And second and more important he was not happy with Trulli getting the new developments before him and overall with his status within the team. He had very clear that he was the superior driver in Renault and he felt that was only appreciated when speaking in public, but not in the garage.

Cheers
David

[ClarkFan]

Ron Dennis: Fernando, what's ol' Flavio paying you?
Fernando Alonso: A sh!te load, why?
Ron: I'll pay you a sh!te load x 2. How's that sound?
Fernando: Great! Flavio, I quit! Stick you're management deal you know where!
Flavio Briatore: Bugger.

But then again, I'm a cynic. ;)

But doesn't Flavio still get 20% of Alonso's contract? If so, Flavio just went 20% of a sh!teload per year on Alonso to 40%.

Must help dull the pain at least a little.

:p

ClarkFan

[jens]

Well, to see the background of Alonso's move, we really have to take a retrospect. At the end of 2005 there were huge speculations about Renault leaving F1 and maybe selling their team already before 2007 (as Michelin was also about to leave). No wonder that Alonso wanted to move somewhere, where he could have a safe future. At one point even his contract with Toyota seemed quite realistic. It's like Ford was about to leave WRC after 2004 and Märtin decided to join another team. :p :

But anyway, I like Alonso's move. It might be risky, but the most boring thing would be to watch one driver racing the whole of his career in the same team. A driver and also the audience need changes and Alonso has offered us that!

If McLaren really can fight for the title this year, I think we should make a huge bow to the Spaniard. There are so many counterarguments against McLaren (last year several engineers left, now totally new driver line-up) and if McLaren manages to make such a rise as it seems based on the winter tests, Alonso deserves a credit as a wonderful test driver and team builder and he could well be compared to Michael, who changed team and became successful there as well.

And as I already mentioned Michael, then I have got a feeling that Hill in his words about Alonso had also Schumacher in his mind...

[raikk]

Having found this article by coincidence:

I agree with Hill... At this current moment in time Mclaren look like the team to beat
:)

[leopard]

And second and more important he was not happy with Trulli getting the new developments before him and overall with his status within the team. He had very clear that he was the superior driver in Renault and he felt that was only appreciated when speaking in public, but not in the garage.

Don't get Trulli involved into this, someone won't be happy with it :colour:
just wondering if he felt the second to Trulli for the new Renault developments, Trulli left Renault before Alonso didn't he?

Besides of course $ McLaren offered him, no-one knows how good Renault will be after winning two consecutive title. While he saw in more long run McLaren have potention he can rely on, and it's now proven (at least during pre season testing :D )
Wining the title in different car i think will give him more additional value considering He left Renault when they are on top performance for the poorer reability car (at that time).



I agree with Hill... At this current moment in time Mclaren look like the team to beat
a good consistent support. ;)

[JoziGirl]

Well, to see the background of Alonso's move, we really have to take a retrospect. At the end of 2005 there were huge speculations about Renault leaving F1 and maybe selling their team already before 2007 (as Michelin was also about to leave). No wonder that Alonso wanted to move somewhere, where he could have a safe future. At one point even his contract with Toyota seemed quite realistic. It's like Ford was about to leave WRC after 2004 and Märtin decided to join another team. :p :

But anyway, I like Alonso's move. It might be risky, but the most boring thing would be to watch one driver racing the whole of his career in the same team. A driver and also the audience need changes and Alonso has offered us that!

If McLaren really can fight for the title this year, I think we should make a huge bow to the Spaniard. There are so many counterarguments against McLaren (last year several engineers left, now totally new driver line-up) and if McLaren manages to make such a rise as it seems based on the winter tests, Alonso deserves a credit as a wonderful test driver and team builder and he could well be compared to Michael, who changed team and became successful there as well.


Hi from a newbie. I'm inclined to agree with what Jens has said here concerning Alonso's move. Initially I had my doubts, but I think it's been a brave switch and has certainly put pressure on him to be extra motivated. I personally think he will meet the challenge. We all know he is capable of winning championships, now it's all about seeing whether McLaren can deliver a car this year that's capable of meeting the challenge.

Anyway, thought I'd post this article which explains Alonso's switch and what happened between him and old Ron.

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=3584270&fSectionId=756&fSetId=381

Alonso's switch - we tell how it really happened

December 8, 2006

By Alan Baldwin

London, England - Sometimes a chance remark can change the course of history.

When Fernando Alonso stood on the Brazilian GP podium in 2005 while soaking up the adulation of his jubilant Renault team on what he called "the greatest day of his life", the world saw a 24-year-old confirmed as Formula 1's youngest champion.

What even those closest to the Spaniard did not know was that even as he gave post-race interviews with his racing suit still reeking of Champagne and the cheers ringing in his ears, was that he had set in motion a shock move to McLaren in 2007.

Exactly how the coup came about has been cloaked in mystery since the news burst like a bombshell on F1 a year ago


Alonso has been coy about the details, saying only that he negotiated the switch himself while keeping team manager Flavio Briatore in the dark.

He hinted at concern about Renault's long-term commitment to the sport while others focused on the financial rewards.

This week McLaren boss Ron Dennis filled in some of the background with a version of events that highlighted how a casual compliment turned into something momentous.

"We all thought the door to Alonso was firmly locked," he told me. "The point where it became apparent that it was very clearly not was on the podium at the 2005 Brazilian GP.

"We had come first and second, they were hot and sticky and wiping themselves down around the back and drinking water," said Dennis, whose team had been celebrating its first 1-2 in more than five years


"Alonso, having come third, was obviously very keen to get the whole thing over with even though he had won the championship.


"It was one of those moments where we were alone for about a minute. "I might have said 'congratulations on the World championship' or something and his response was along the lines of 'Well, the thing about you guys is that you make it so difficult because you keep developing your cars'.

"I said 'You could be part of it' and he just said 'I'd like to be'. I was just stunned. I said 'Are you serious?' and he said 'Yes'."

The two met in great secrecy in a hotel room at the following Japanese GP and, three weeks after the initial conversation, the deal was done.

Since then Alonso has gone on to win his second championship with Renault while Kimi Raikkonen has left McLaren for Ferrari.



There can be little doubt that McLaren feels it has the right man for the job, a driver with the potential to rank alongside the all-time greats.

The team knew Alonso was good when it snapped him up. After the 2006 season it suspects he could be even better than they thought.

"Fernando, I'm sure, will be phenomenal," said chief executive Martin Whitmarsh. "From the moment we decided to pursue Fernando, which from my recollection is slightly different to Ron's, we thought it was the right thing.

"We thought we made the right decision a year ago but it was actually a better decision than we then realised.



"This year I think he has had a much more difficult political environment. When you take on Ferrari, you take on City Hall as well.

"He had several setbacks this year, in terms of stewards decisions," Whitmarsh added, "but he has demonstrated just how battle-hardened he is."

McLaren didn't win in 2005 for the first time in a decade after winning more than Renault the previous season and there can be no excuses in 2007.

McLaren, with Ferrari's Michael Schumacher retired and Canadian Jacques Villeneuve forced out, has the only World champion on the grid." - Reuters

[raphael123]

I guess it's not surprising really, but some people here are showing their lack of knowledge of the sport - which I'm referring to the Damon Hill comments. I shouldn't be too harsh, because it may be because they were too young at the time, or are still quite recent F1 followers. But I've always believed in not making bald statements about things they have never seen. I wasn't around during the Fangio and Moss era, and though I enjoy reading about them, and often join in discussions, I don't make claims such as 'Fangio was lucky because of team orders etc', because I wasn't watching F1 at the time, so I can't comment on what really happened.

wmcot and fly_ac I would guess weren't following F1 during the 95-99 seasons? Or if so the latter years like 98 and 99? Can you tell us when you started watching F1?

WMCOT and Fly_Ac, Hill did not leave Williams on his own accord. He was waiting for a new contract offer, which never came. By the time he was told he wasn't being kept (which came as a shock to most people) there was no decent drives left. So he had to settle for Arrows. No, He didn't win with Arrows, though in the first race of the year they only just about managed to qualify within the 107% rule, and by the end of the season they were a Top 10 team, and Hill actually qualified the final race of the season in 4th, 0.052 or something ridiculous behind pole position time! Damon Hill was the best developer around, and he proved it again with Jordon the following year. And yes, he did win a race there!

So yes, I think Hill is in a good position to judge. Though obviously time will tell in the end.

To add a bit more history to it, Hill's plan was to be driving the 98 McLaren, which is why he only signed a 1yr deal at Arrows. This was down to Adrian Newey's influence at Mclaren, who rated Hill as a good driver and an excellent developer of cars. Ron Dennis kept to his side of the bargain by offering Hill a race seat, but coped out by only offering a pay as you win salary, which Hill found insulting considering he'd already proven his worth. Newey wasn't happy about it, but Ron Dennis had a tie with Mika Hakkinen in particular, and DC. He felt they deserved to be kept. It turns out Hill should have accepted as Mika won 8/9 races, so Hill would have earned around £8/9m that year if he'd repeated Mika's form! But at the time of the offer, McLaren hadn't won many races between 93-96, and only started showing some kind of form at the end of 97.

[tinchote]

To add a bit more history to it, Hill's plan was to be driving the 98 McLaren, which is why he only signed a 1yr deal at Arrows. This was down to Adrian Newey's influence at Mclaren, who rated Hill as a good driver and an excellent developer of cars. Ron Dennis kept to his side of the bargain by offering Hill a race seat, but coped out by only offering a pay as you win salary, which Hill found insulting considering he'd already proven his worth. Newey wasn't happy about it, but Ron Dennis had a tie with Mika Hakkinen in particular, and DC. He felt they deserved to be kept. It turns out Hill should have accepted as Mika won 8/9 races, so Hill would have earned around £8/9m that year if he'd repeated Mika's form! But at the time of the offer, McLaren hadn't won many races between 93-96, and only started showing some kind of form at the end of 97.

That looks silly on Hill's part. Even if Mclaren was not among the best in 97, going to Jordan for a little more money instead of the team with the big history and the big budget was somewhat not very smart, particularly if the decision was made out of pride.

[fly_ac]

Can you tell us when you started watching F1?From about 1987/88 and more regularly from 1991 when I myself got involved in motorsport as a technician.

So yes, I think Hill is in a good position to judge.
I won't comment on that one, as I were told to discuss the abilities of Hill in History and Nostalgia.

Though obviously time will tell in the end.
That sounds better. :up:

[raphael123]

tinchote

Hill would have been driving for McLaren for free with the deal Ron offered him. Then he would have got around $1m for each race victory. This was basically a contract which was asking him to prove himself all over again. He went to Jordon who looked pretty bright in 97, with a contract which showed him some sort of respect. If I was Hill I would have taken the offer, especially as he was 37/38 at the time, but I'm not so narrow minded I can't see both sides of the arguement.

fly_ac, I must be honest your reply saying you've been an F1 fan since 91 surprises me. I'll take your word for it :) But it's quite surprising you don't recall Belgium 98! Though not many cars finished that race, the only retirement which benefited Hill was Schumacher (who made a driver error), so that isn't really relevant to his win. And the fact you don't believe Hill to be in a position to make a comment on Alonso's move to McLaren as a good way to prove himself, when I think Hill managed to do exactly that, suggested you weren't aware of Hill's achievements during the 97-98 seasons. Both teams made radical performance gains during the course of the seasons, and Hill drove argueably one of the greatest race performances in recent history in Hungary 97, only a mechanical failure letting him down on the final lap, and gave a team who'd never won a GP a victory! But if we're not suppose to discuss it here, I'll copy and paste this into the Hill topic in the History section :)

[ioan]

tinchote

But it's quite surprising you don't recall Belgium 98! Though not many cars finished that race, the only retirement which benefited Hill was Schumacher (who made a driver error), so that isn't really relevant to his win.

And what was that driver error? Not thinking about what stupid things a young Coulthard could do???

[raphael123]

And what was that driver error? Not thinking about what stupid things a young Coulthard could do???

It was more Schumachers fault than DC's fault, though admittedly DC didn't do the smartest thing.

At the end of the day, Michael was aware he was coming up to lap DC, he had a 30-40sec lead on Damon Hill, and was lapping almost 2sec a lap quicker at the time the accident happened. He knew there was a car near abouts him from the spray which made his vision even worse, and didn't slow down, and ended up ramming straight into the back of DC.

Though it was a clear mistake by MS, DC also played a role in staying on the racing line and lifting off to let MS pass. Lifting off when vision was so poor was a stupid thing to do. If he was going to lift off, he should have gone off the racing line (however he wasn't to know which decision Michael would take - overtake him on the racing line, or off the racing line). However on the other hand, backmarkers aren't expected to move off the racing line, and why Schumacher was doing such great speeds in those kind of conditions, with such a lead, knowing full well there was a car infront of him was just plain stupid - that was his driver error. It's like driving with your eyes shut 1sec before you come to overtake, most people would take it slowly to give themselves time to react, but Schumacher, for whatever reason (which is why it's a driver error) decide to keep his foot flat to the ground.

You can't blame DC for Michael ramming up his backside. I'd say it was 70-30 in Schumachers error.

[ioan]

It was more Schumachers fault than DC's fault, though admittedly DC didn't do the smartest thing.

At the end of the day, Michael was aware he was coming up to lap DC, he had a 30-40sec lead on Damon Hill, and was lapping almost 2sec a lap quicker at the time the accident happened. He knew there was a car near abouts him from the spray which made his vision even worse, and didn't slow down, and ended up ramming straight into the back of DC.

Though it was a clear mistake by MS, DC also played a role in staying on the racing line and lifting off to let MS pass. Lifting off when vision was so poor was a stupid thing to do. If he was going to lift off, he should have gone off the racing line (however he wasn't to know which decision Michael would take - overtake him on the racing line, or off the racing line). However on the other hand, backmarkers aren't expected to move off the racing line, and why Schumacher was doing such great speeds in those kind of conditions, with such a lead, knowing full well there was a car infront of him was just plain stupid - that was his driver error. It's like driving with your eyes shut 1sec before you come to overtake, most people would take it slowly to give themselves time to react, but Schumacher, for whatever reason (which is why it's a driver error) decide to keep his foot flat to the ground.

You can't blame DC for Michael ramming up his backside. I'd say it was 70-30 in Schumachers error.

You made fun of fly_ac's F1 knowledge, but you know little about F1, at least about the 98 Spa incident, or else you would know that around the 2003 French GP David Coulthard himself declared that it was a huge mistake of his and apologized to MS.

So stop making fun of others and do some reading on the subjects you bring up. That's all.

[ArrowsFA1]

...around the 2003 French GP David Coulthard himself declared that it was a huge mistake of his and apologized to MS....
David Coulthard:

"I realised on reflection...when Michael ran into the back of me, his reaction was that I'd brake tested him or tried to kill him and all that sort of thing. The stewards looked at the data and I hadn't braked, so it was just all brushed under the carpet. The reality is that I lifted to let him pass me, but I lifted in heavy spray on the racing line. You should never do that. I would never do that now. In 1998, I didn't have the experience and the knowledge, and I had never had someone run into the back of me. And because someone pushes you, you react. So you act as though 'I didn't do that. The minute I knew he was there, and I was told by the team that he was and was trying to allow him to pass me, I should have made a smarter decision."
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/11031/.html

[ioan]

Thanks Arrows.
Do you have them all bookmarked or what?! ;)

[raphael123]

You made fun of fly_ac's F1 knowledge, but you know little about F1, at least about the 98 Spa incident, or else you would know that around the 2003 French GP David Coulthard himself declared that it was a huge mistake of his and apologized to MS.

So stop making fun of others and do some reading on the subjects you bring up. That's all.

Don't be silly ioan. I said myself DC played a role in the accident, in lifting off (as ArrowsFA1 has quoted for us). But you can't put 100% blame on DC. How can you? Yes he made a mistake lifting off on the racing line, but Michael did too in keeping his foot flat to the ground, with no visibility, knowing full well a car was infront of him. Michael ran into the back of DC, DC didn't reverse in Michael!

Just because DC is enough of a sportsman to admit when he's made a mistake, and Michael isn't, doesn't mean a person who admits to making a mistake means they take full responsibility.

Please, think before you post :)

[Mr Kurtz]

Don't be silly ioan. I said myself DC played a role in the accident, in lifting off (as ArrowsFA1 has quoted for us). But you can't put 100% blame on DC. How can you? Yes he made a mistake lifting off on the racing line, but Michael did too in keeping his foot flat to the ground, with no visibility, knowing full well a car was infront of him. Michael ran into the back of DC, DC didn't reverse in Michael!

Just because DC is enough of a sportsman to admit when he's made a mistake, and Michael isn't, doesn't mean a person who admits to making a mistake means they take full responsibility.

Please, think before you post :)

This is racing, not driving around on the streets. If you're racing, you don't lift to overtake a backmarker even in the wet. The person in front should NEVER lift. Therefor Michael can't be blamed because DC did something unexpected. Probably Michael thinks the same way (and so does DC) because he hasn't admitted to making a mistake. Besides, if you look at the video you can see Michael starting to go around DC but then smashes in to him because he lifted. That is why he broke of 1 wheel and didnt smash the complete front end.

[ioan]

Don't be silly ioan. I said myself DC played a role in the accident, in lifting off (as ArrowsFA1 has quoted for us). But you can't put 100% blame on DC. How can you? Yes he made a mistake lifting off on the racing line, but Michael did too in keeping his foot flat to the ground, with no visibility, knowing full well a car was infront of him. Michael ran into the back of DC, DC didn't reverse in Michael!

Just because DC is enough of a sportsman to admit when he's made a mistake, and Michael isn't, doesn't mean a person who admits to making a mistake means they take full responsibility.

Please, think before you post :)

I won't repeat what Mr. Kurtz just posted, I'll just say that poking some fun to fellow forum members is OK as long as you know what you talk about.

[raphael123]

Mr Kurtz


This is racing, not driving around on the streets. If you're racing, you don't lift to overtake a backmarker even in the wet. The person in front should NEVER lift. Therefor Michael can't be blamed because DC did something unexpected. Probably Michael thinks the same way (and so does DC) because he hasn't admitted to making a mistake. Besides, if you look at the video you can see Michael starting to go around DC but then smashes in to him because he lifted. That is why he broke of 1 wheel and didnt smash the complete front end.

Mr Kurtz, I am not denying that DC played a part in the collision. Not once have I stated DC was completely innocent. But it seems like you are putting 100% blame on DC. As you say, it's racing, you shouldn't expect things. Just like you should NEVER lift on the racing line in poor visibility, you should NEVER keep your foot flat on the throttle when you can't see a thing in wet conditions and YOU KNOW there is a car infront of you!! You can't surely believe that was not a mistake!!

So yes, DC made a mistake, but MS did too. You're being ignorant if you honestly believe MS made no mistake at all!

ioan

Where is all this poking fun at fellow members coming from? Where have I poked fun at anyone? I questioned a fellow members knowledge of a season. They asked if Hill managed to win a race after leaving Williams, and for most people who were watching F1 in the late 90's know of Beligum 98. Apparently he wasn't being serious, and he knew all along. All I can say is I'm not a mind-reader. Hardly poking fun is it? Please, as I said, don't be silly :)

And I won't repeat what I've said to Mr Kurtz regarding Belgium 98, the same applies to you, as you two are in agreement :)

[Mark]

Backmarkers lift all the time to let the leaders go through, it happens dozens of times every single race. Try watching and you will see ;)

[Mr Kurtz]

Backmarkers lift all the time to let the leaders go through, it happens dozens of times every single race. Try watching and you will see ;)

Raphael123, Mark,

Allthough I'm not a Formula 1 racer, I have some racing experience in the Belgian Sprinters Cup (200hp race cars), which is a class that drives endurance races together with the much faster cars of Belcar (which are GT cars). The standard FIA approved rules that we have to obey is that you NEVER EVER change your racing line and speed when being lapped by a faster car. This is because the faster driver will anticipate what you are doing while going past you or outbraking you. This rule goes in the dry AND in the wet. Why? Because the speed differences are so high that if you do something unexpected there's just no time for the faster car to react. I imagine that this rule is standard practice in F1 too. However you can see that much slower cars will lift and go off the racing line in F1 sometimes. But this NEVER happens on a straight and surely not while there's the spray like in that race. So yes, I think MS did what any other driver would have done and that is to anticipate where DC would be and what he would do. Whether or not DC lifted intentionally to let MS crash is a discussion that I'm not going to have, but it was his fault that they crashed and I don't think MS can be blamed anything. And yes, he could have lifted. Would he have avoided an accident? Probably not since he was trying to lap DC which is why he was going faster. Besides, since he was allready lapping faster, DC would not have needed to lift to let him through and certainly not in that place. He could have waited 200m untill they were on the straight.

[raphael123]

Raphael123, Mark,

Allthough I'm not a Formula 1 racer, I have some racing experience in the Belgian Sprinters Cup (200hp race cars), which is a class that drives endurance races together with the much faster cars of Belcar (which are GT cars). The standard FIA approved rules that we have to obey is that you NEVER EVER change your racing line and speed when being lapped by a faster car. This is because the faster driver will anticipate what you are doing while going past you or outbraking you. This rule goes in the dry AND in the wet. Why? Because the speed differences are so high that if you do something unexpected there's just no time for the faster car to react. I imagine that this rule is standard practice in F1 too. However you can see that much slower cars will lift and go off the racing line in F1 sometimes. But this NEVER happens on a straight and surely not while there's the spray like in that race. So yes, I think MS did what any other driver would have done and that is to anticipate where DC would be and what he would do. Whether or not DC lifted intentionally to let MS crash is a discussion that I'm not going to have, but it was his fault that they crashed and I don't think MS can be blamed anything. And yes, he could have lifted. Would he have avoided an accident? Probably not since he was trying to lap DC which is why he was going faster. Besides, since he was allready lapping faster, DC would not have needed to lift to let him through and certainly not in that place. He could have waited 200m untill they were on the straight.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree then :) Obviously DC shouldn't have lifted, but at the same time, it was stupid of MS to go on full throttle with zero visibility, when he was fully aware that a car was infront of him. If that's not stupid I don't know what is. It's just as stupid as DC lifting off on the straight! To say MS did nothing wrong at all shows ignorance on your part. And of course DC didn't lift deliberately. If you believe that (I'm not saying you do, but IF you do), I suppose you also think Hill was to blame for Adelaide 94, and DC to blame in Argentina 98, and HHF in Canada 98 etc.

[W8&C]

DC made a mistake, but MS did too.

Yeah! MS made the mistake to race as fast as possible and - given the circumstances - going incredible fast, DC made the mistake of suddenly going to cruise around the circuit.


If that's not stupid I don't know what is.

Maybe its called “racing”?

[raphael123]

Yeah! MS made the mistake to race as fast as possible and - given the circumstances - going incredible fast, DC made the mistake of suddenly going to cruise around the circuit.



Maybe its called “racing”?

lol racing? What are you on about? Going flat out when you can't see f*ck all, and you know there's a driver infront is not 'racing'! That's just asking for trouble (which is what he got lol)

When you have zero visibility on a wet track, drivers tend to take it more cautiously. It's common sense mate. It is stupid to do what MS did, hence why he crashed into the back of DC. And before you have a go, yes, what DC did was also stupid. Both made stupid mistakes.

[ioan]

lol racing? What are you on about? Going flat out when you can't see f*ck all, and you know there's a driver infront is not 'racing'! That's just asking for trouble (which is what he got lol)

When you have zero visibility on a wet track, drivers tend to take it more cautiously. It's common sense mate. It is stupid to do what MS did, hence why he crashed into the back of DC. And before you have a go, yes, what DC did was also stupid. Both made stupid mistakes.

Racing is about going flat out.
You have no idea about how good or bad M.Schumacher's visibility was at the moment. He did see DC pretty well given that he tried to do his best to avoid the McLaren, but he didn't count on DC lifting on the racing line.
It's common sense if motor racing that at 200Kmh getting your foot of the throttle = breaking.

I see that you like to call MS stupid so I'll put this to a rest because it's becoming quite pointless to argue with a DC fan.

[raphael123]

Racing is about going flat out.
You have no idea about how good or bad M.Schumacher's visibility was at the moment. He did see DC pretty well given that he tried to do his best to avoid the McLaren, but he didn't count on DC lifting on the racing line.
It's common sense if motor racing that at 200Kmh getting your foot of the throttle = breaking.

I see that you like to call MS stupid so I'll put this to a rest because it's becoming quite pointless to argue with a DC fan.


Visibility that race was extremely poor. Everyone said so after the race. Funny how you tell me I don't know how bad or goodvisibility was, then immediately tell me what MS could see lol. Anyway, Schumacher wasn't the only driver to drive into the back of a backmarker that race, it was an easy mistake to make. I think a Benettons drove into the back of a Minardi's was it? I don't recall exactly who the drivers were, Fisichella and someone?

No Ioan, that is not racing. As I have said, when visibility is as poor as it was, and there's a car infront of you, and you have a 30-40 second lead, it's stupid to go flat out. Surely you can see that, even if you weren't expecting DC to lift off, you should be cautious in that instance!

I don't think Michael Schumacher is stupid. He's one of the greatest drivers ever, if not thee best! But that particular decision was stupid yes :)

As for me being a DC fan, you couldn't be further from the truth. My opinion of DC is he is a good driver. But that's it. He's good. Any driver who spent so many years in a car capable of winning a title, and never achieved it, or even challenged for it is a good driver, but not great by any means. I think on his day he could challenge the likes of Mika and MS during the late 90's and early 00's, but his day would come about 3-4 times a season, which wasn't enough. I don't think he ever managed to win back to back races did he? That shows what I'm talking about.

Should I assume your a Michael Schumacher fan?

[ShiftingGears]

lol racing? What are you on about? Going flat out when you can't see f*ck all, and you know there's a driver infront is not 'racing'! That's just asking for trouble (which is what he got lol)

When you have zero visibility on a wet track, drivers tend to take it more cautiously. It's common sense mate. It is stupid to do what MS did, hence why he crashed into the back of DC. And before you have a go, yes, what DC did was also stupid. Both made stupid mistakes.

If he didn't want to get potentially involved in a crash then he wouldn't step into a motor vehicle, would he? Now THATS common sense!

Tiptoeing around a track just isn't how a true racing driver races!

I hated Schumacher when he was racing, but that was DC's fault entirely.

[W8&C]

...
I think a Benettons drove into the back of a Minardi's was it? I don't recall exactly who the drivers were, Fisichella and someone?
...
I guess, that´s one of the reasons that Fisichella never came near to WDC and Schumacher was on top of the sheets for 7 times.

[Ranger]

A bit of a careless accident on both driver's behalfs. Both made wrong decisions and assumptions at that time. Kind of like when Senna slammed into the back of Brundle at a soaked Adelaide in 1989. Both times the drivers assumed that the car in front was somewhere different to where it was, and the accident followed.

As the good old saying goes: **** happens. Why are we discussing what happened in 1998 anyway? People have had 9 years to bitch about this.

[raphael123]

If he didn't want to get potentially involved in a crash then he wouldn't step into a motor vehicle, would he? Now THATS common sense!

Tiptoeing around a track just isn't how a true racing driver races!

I hated Schumacher when he was racing, but that was DC's fault entirely.

Tiptoeing isn't the word I used. I said using caution. That's common sense. You don't drive flat out when you can't see properly. This applies even more so in a race. Driving flat out when you can't see may be brave, but its not 'how a true racing driver races'. It's reckless and stupid.

Anyway, I've been trying to find some quotes on the matter. This is what I've found, which differ slighty to what some you guys have said.

1) According to the FIA's Sporting Regulations (appendix L), it's the responsibility of the driver being lapped to "give the other vehicle the right of way by pulling over to one side in order to allow for passing on the other side."

2) This is a quote from DC on his view of the incident '"I'd seen the blue flag, the team had informed me because obviously it was very difficult to see in my mirrors because the conditions here were terrible with the amount of spray. They'd informed me that Michael was behind me and that I should let him past. And I went through the left hand corner just before running down to Pouhon, maintained my speed to allow him to overtake me before Pouhon and he ran into the back of me. Obviously it was a regretful incident; there's no way I wanted to get in the way of his race, but his behaviour in coming into the garage and accusing me of 'F-ing trying to kill him' is just unacceptable. You know, when I've had incidents with Michael in the past, I've waited until afterwards and spoken to him man to man, face to face to discuss the incident. We can't change what's happened, but his behaviour afterwards was just unacceptable."

3) When taking a look at Michaels frame of mind at the time, he was seen beforehand making gestures with his fist at frustration of being stuck behind DC. And we all know how he reacted after he got back to the pits lol - very classy.

4) It also seems to say (on other message boards) that DC did not actually lift. DC says he maintained his speed (in my quote above), while others say he accelerated, but to a lesser extent than Schumacher. While some of you here claim he actually lifted. So which one is the truth?

Anyway, those these are interesting, at the end of the day, whether he lifted or not, I think Schumacher made a mistake in not taking caution, just as DC made a mistake in lifting. If he simply maintained his speed it makes things slightly different. As he would have had to do that to let MS past, as he had already held him up for a bit.

[raphael123]

A bit of a careless accident on both driver's behalfs. Both made wrong decisions and assumptions at that time. Kind of like when Senna slammed into the back of Brundle at a soaked Adelaide in 1989. Both times the drivers assumed that the car in front was somewhere different to where it was, and the accident followed.

As the good old saying goes: **** happens. Why are we discussing what happened in 1998 anyway? People have had 9 years to bitch about this.

I agree with you there. Nice to see someone else who thinks both drivers made a wrong decision. Fair enough, DC played his role, but to excuse Michael of any sort of mistake is unfair on DC.

[ioan]

What about renaming the thread? Or even better, go back to the initial theme?
Cause even if DC would shout it on their faces some will never believe it that it was only his fault, because they don't want to.

See you in another thread. ;)

[raphael123]

What about renaming the thread? Or even better, go back to the initial theme?
Cause even if DC would shout it on their faces some will never believe it that it was only his fault, because they don't want to.

See you in another thread. ;)


lol very true, the topic of discussion has changed quite drastically. Was it not you who wanted to discuss it though? :P

I think it's you who will never believe MS made a mistake as well, because you don't want to. Afterall, I'm not a DC fan, I don't care if he stuffs up, I'm only saying he was not the only one who made a mistake because that's what I believe, and the majority of drivers on the grid would agree it was a stupid thing to do. I can be quite neutral about it. I'm not a fan of MS, just like I'm not a fan of DC. You on the other hand, and I hadn't read your signature until just now, are/was a Michael Schumacher fan. You have every reason to want it to be all down to DC, and Michael was just an innocent victim who crashed into the back of a car.

Anyway, I guess it's just a difference of opinion. You think driving flat out in poor visibility with a car infront of you was what he should have done, while I think using a bit of caution when overtaking a car you can't see was the thing he should have done. However to say 'some people will never believe it that it was only his fault, because they don't want to' is quite rich, when I think it's you who it should apply it. Plus you failed to answer where I was poking fun. as you say, some people only see/believe what they want to :)

Nice chatting :) :P

[jens]

Someone talked about DC's comments before French GP in 2003, where he witnessed he was resposible for that Belgium GP accident in 1998.

So DC said it after the European GP in 2003. Driving and crashing behind Alonso he experienced, how impossible it is to react if someone in front of you slows suddenly and unexpectedly down. DC didn't have much to do as he flew off onto the gravel. In that spray and fog of 1998 Belgium GP it was even more impossible to react. Remember what Hill said at the press conference: "It was impossible to see and I just hoped that none of the backmarkers was in front of me." Teams were basically radioating to give an advice to drivers, where they placed and how they should react. In the final laps Peter Sauber, Eddie Jordan and Ron Dennis were together (as the Jordans, DC and Alesi were running close to each other) and discussed, how to make the race to a safe end.

I have some kind of feeling that the McLaren squad didn't give a full overview about the situation for DC. Jean Todt right before the accident reminded Ron that they should tell DC to move over and not to make any trouble for MS. As DC was already way behind the first ones and Häkkinen out, maybe the race managers in their subconsciousness hoped that something like that would happen and didn't bother to inform DC about the situation. "If a collision happens, then who cares," was maybe their attitude.

[raphael123]

No, from what I've read up about it, and remember, DC had been radio-ed that MS was behind him. MS was behind DC for nearly an entire lap, which is why MS got frustrated and started showing his fist. Maybe that's why MS choose to try and lap him when he did, due to frustration. No wonder he was angry when he finally got out the car, he must have been fuming as he was already well angry in the car, so he wasn't in the best frame of mind.

DC was irresponsible, and maybe let his ego get in the way by not letting him past earlier. DC should have let MS past earlier. Saying that, MS was making 2sec a lap on Hill, there was no need to get that worked up over it. That mistake probably cost him the title, as he would have got 10pts more than Mika in that race.

[ioan]

MS was behind DC for nearly an entire lap, which is why MS got frustrated and started showing his fist.

What use showing the fist when there is no visibility (according to some) ?!
Just kidding! ;)

[raphael123]

What use showing the fist when there is no visibility (according to some) ?!
Just kidding! ;)

lol indeed, my point exactly. Michael was obviously not thinking properly at the time, hence the accident I guess :)

[Narr]

What use showing the fist when there is no visibility (according to some) ?!
Just kidding! ;)

Even in normal races conditions it surprises me that drivers bother to shake their fists and expect their opponents to see them in those tiny mirrors.

[SteveA]

Well, they probably see them in one of the many giant screens!

[Viv]

Or probably they'll see then when they watch the race again or are told by others that they were shown a fist

[raphael123]

Looks like Hill was right :)

McLaren, leading the Drivers and Constructors title.
Renault - nowhere land.

I guess he was in a good position to make that comment :)

[ioan]

Looks like Hill was right :)

McLaren, leading the Drivers and Constructors title.
Renault - nowhere land.

I guess he was in a good position to make that comment :)

Let's say he was somewhat lucky with that comment. Things could have gone either way for Renault and McLaren.

[raphael123]

Let's say he was somewhat lucky with that comment. Things could have gone either way for Renault and McLaren.

lol yep :p :. And all the people who said otherwise were just unlucky :dozey:

[Valve Bounce]

Renault don't have a winning drivr anymore, and heiki is not about to set the F1 world alight in the manner of Lewis Hamilton.

[ArrowsFA1]

Damon's got it spot on so far.

As he said: "With this decision, Fernando wants to prove that he can win with another team." He's done that :cool:

[leopard]

Right He's done significant improvement on car and the team performance, and seeing current Renault achievement is sort of evidence he has made right decision on moving, but it is too early he's already succeeded in the field, Ferrari is still the fastest.

[raphael123]

Right He's done significant improvement on car and the team performance, and seeing current Renault achievement is sort of evidence he has made right decision on moving, but it is too early he's already succeeded in the field, Ferrari is still the fastest.

Try telling that to Garry Walker :p :

[leopard]

Try telling that to Garry Walker :p :
This time it won't be easy, statistic this year revealed 1:1 taken from Australia and Malaysia, and Bahrain was almost a tie, once significantly Massa was leading the race he cooled the SPEED down for saving the car, although Ferrari obviously won there.

Let's wait in few next races, although in the middle of season it is not impossible McLaren to be the fastest.

[Valve Bounce]

Damon's got it spot on so far.

As he said: "With this decision, Fernando wants to prove that he can win with another team." He's done that :cool:

And to add icing to the cake, he's escaped the clutches of Sleazy Flav.

[raphael123]

This time it won't be easy, statistic this year revealed 1:1 taken from Australia and Malaysia, and Bahrain was almost a tie, once significantly Massa was leading the race he cooled the SPEED down for saving the car, although Ferrari obviously won there.

Let's wait in few next races, although in the middle of season it is not impossible McLaren to be the fastest.

It's 2:1 to Ferrari.

Ferrari quite easily had an advantage, albeit a small one.

They qualified 1st and 3rd. McLaren were 2nd and 4th.
They finished 1st and 3rd. McLaren were 2nd and 5th.
Fastest laps was 1st and 3rd. McLaren had 2nd and 4th.

Only the biased would claim McLaren were equal to Ferrari in Bahrain :)

[ioan]

It's 2:1 to Ferrari.

Ferrari quite easily had an advantage, albeit a small one.

They qualified 1st and 3rd. McLaren were 2nd and 4th.
They finished 1st and 3rd. McLaren were 2nd and 5th.
Fastest laps was 1st and 3rd. McLaren had 2nd and 4th.

Only the biased would claim McLaren were equal to Ferrari in Bahrain :)

Who knows, the cars might have been equal, but the drivers? :D :p :

[raphael123]

Who knows, the cars might have been equal, but the drivers? :D :p :

True, I think that was definately the case in Malaysia. Ferrari, and in particular, Massa, cost Ferrari the chance of a 1-2.

However I think even though Alonso had a bad day, the McLaren didn't have the pace all weekend to beat Ferrari.

I don't think many people rate Massa above that of Alonso. And so far this year, Hamilton and Alonso have been near faultless all year, compared to the Ferrari drivers, with Massa making rookie errors, and Kimi being rather conservative so far.

No, I think sometimes things are as simple as they seem - Ferrari had a better car :)

[leopard]

It's 2:1 to Ferrari.

Ferrari quite easily had an advantage, albeit a small one.

They qualified 1st and 3rd. McLaren were 2nd and 4th.
They finished 1st and 3rd. McLaren were 2nd and 5th.
Fastest laps was 1st and 3rd. McLaren had 2nd and 4th.

Only the biased would claim McLaren were equal to Ferrari in Bahrain :)

Now your turn, try telling this to Garry, :cool:

[raphael123]

Now your turn, try telling this to Garry, :cool:

lol trust me I've tried - and failed haha.

I find it a shame, Garry is usually quite accurate concerning F1 matters when Ferrari aren't related, or he is neutral, but when it comes to giving an opinion on Ferrari, Schumacher, or Montoya - he talks the biggest pile of BS ever!

However according to some canadians here, it's not a stupid opinion, it's just an opinion. I think some of what Garry says (who I quite like as a forumer in fairness :up :) is proof some opinions are stupid.

[leopard]

Yeah, more different opinions spice up the forum to be more than delicious sauce. :up:

[jens]

I'm not sure whether this has already been mentioned somewhere, but arguably one of the reasons, why McLaren-Mercedes is so good this year, is the 19 000-rev limiter. Mercedes failed to build as competitive V8 engine as the rivals had and reducing revs has had a smaller negative effect on them than on rivals.