Chandhok to replace Trulli for German GP [Archive]

CNR

23rd July 2011, 00:41

It's hilarious how people are willing to jump on the backmarker hating bandwagon based on half a season running in the absolute last backmarker team, with most probably the worst handling car in the history of F1. And of course, all this while for the last two years, excuses for the seven time world champion Schumacher's age and time away from F1 keep on coming while he's getting plowed by Barbie consistently. He wasn't doing so bad in the race of champions last year, was he? Doing much better than Vettel even, but Rosberg seems to be a hard nut to crack. Hmmm..... :dozey:

Chandok is a freaking "Stone" get him out of there.
take v8 supercars over here
Jamie Whincup - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamie_Whincup)

In 2001 Whincup embarked on the Australian Formula Ford Championship with a team run by his father and Uncle Graeme (a former Sports Sedan star) with mechanical support from fellow V8 Supercar driver Greg Ritter. After finishing third in his debut year, he jumped to Sonic Motorsport for the 2002 season and went on to win the championship convincingly which secured him his first ever V8 Supercar drive with Garry Rogers Motorsport

After completing a full year of V8 Supercar racing with Garry Rogers Motorsport, he was replaced by the more experienced Cameron McConville and was left without a full-time drive for 2004. He was later contracted by Castrol Perkins Racing to drive in the two endurance events

long story short
driver droped after first year has won Championship 2 times and well on his way to 3rd
2007 V8Supercar Championship Series 2nd
2008 V8Supercar Championship Series 1st
2009 V8Supercar Championship Series 1st
2010 V8Supercar Championship Series 2nd

CaptainRaiden

23rd July 2011, 15:12

Not bad by Chandhok to be within a second of Heikki after being out of action for one full year and driving a car he hasn't really driven before. Also, he's actually closer to Heikki than Button is to Lewis in the same car. Would have lined up next to Heikki if not for the last gasp effort by Glock to impress his home crowd:

19. Heikki Kovalainen Team Lotus 01:35.599 9
20. Timo Glock Virgin 01:36.400 12
21. Karun Chandhok Team Lotus 01:36.422 11

steveaki13

23rd July 2011, 20:15

Solid effort in Quali from Karun.

Although he has made quite a few mistakes over the weekend.

Lets see what sort of race he has.

Robinho

23rd July 2011, 20:28

CaptainRaiden

24th July 2011, 12:34

Although he has made quite a few mistakes over the weekend.

I think that was to be expected, as it's his first time driving this year's Lotus, first time driving with Pirelli tyres and DRS. I don't know if he drove during winter testing at all. Mark Webber also commented earlier this year how difficult it was for him to get used to the Pirellis.

8 tenths is not a bad gap to Heikki, especially given he was starting from about 2.5secs in FP1, I dkn't think he is a bad driver by any means, he's not likely to win any titles, but he's a decent peddler.

Any driver can win the title in the fastest car. I thought Nigel Mansell and Damon Hill were also decent peddlers or also-rans, but when they got the absolute fastest car, they brought the title home. Whether Chandhok is better than what he has shown, remains to be seen, at least until he gets a half decent car.

Koz

24th July 2011, 12:59

He has done very well. The gap is less than Lotus' last quali outing.

steveaki13

24th July 2011, 13:34

I am looking forward to seeing Karun in a car that at least can now battle other cars. Last years HRT he and his team mate were always last, with the lotus he can battle HRT and Virgin and if he has a poor start at least he can finally fight other cars.

Good luck Karun.

CaptainRaiden

24th July 2011, 13:44

I don't think he'd have a good race. One year out of action + managing the Pirelli tyres + using DRS is all gonna be a bit too much to handle I'm guessing.

Robinho

24th July 2011, 15:56

good guess, he was shocking it seems

steveaki13

24th July 2011, 16:04

Well predicted Captain. Exactly as it turned out.

Dave B

24th July 2011, 16:08

It's a shame he's not doing Hungary too, two back-to-back races would have given a much fairer indication of how he's performing. Ah well, there's always India....

CaptainRaiden

24th July 2011, 16:09

Dismal race. I knew it would be difficult. While the qualy pace was good, it's just too much to ask after being one year out, while the car's handling and behavior has changed completely because of the Pirellis.

CaptainRaiden

24th July 2011, 17:05

Chandhok surprised by tyre degradation rate - GPUpdate.net (http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/264975/chandhok-surprised-by-tyre-degradation-rate/)

Chandhok surprised by tyre degradation rate
24 July 2011

Karun Chandhok’s German Grand Prix marked his first Formula 1 race since his outing for HRT at Silverstone last year. After sinking to the back of the field on the opening lap, the Indian suffered a dramatic off at the Schumacher S and eventually limped home to 20th place, four laps down on winner Lewis Hamilton.

“That’s a full race distance completed and an awful lot of learning under my belt,” Chandhok said after the 60-lap race. “Honestly, that probably wasn’t the race I wanted - I had a couple of high-speed spins and I think I need more time to get used to the tyres.

“When they start to go off, there’s very little give compared to last year’s rubber, but that’s all part of the learning process and I’m glad I got the car home and did the best job I could.”

THAT is exactly what I suspected. Without doing long runs in testing, there is no freakin way a driver, especially a one-off replacement, can prepare or get used to these tyres. Unfortunately for Chandhok, he's not going to get any more testing or practice time with these Pirellis until the Indian GP, and with no in-season testing, he's really in a pickle. This is exactly what's hurting Daniel Ricciardo as well.

These guys need to muscle up some more sponsors, pay for their seat in a semi-decent car, and get a full season with winter testing and the works under their belt. These kind of random, one-off or mid-year drives just makes them look worse than they are.

DexDexter

24th July 2011, 21:01

No disrespect to Chandhok but this driver swap takes some of the credibility of Team Lotus away . Serious F1 teams don't swap drivers for one race. They effectively sacrificed one race because there was no way Chandhok was going to be competitive with the amount of running he's had this year.

ioan

24th July 2011, 21:05

Well, it's not like if Trulli would have won the race or even got points anyway. So what did they lose?

DexDexter

24th July 2011, 21:13

Well, it's not like if Trulli would have won the race or even got points anyway. So what did they lose?

A better finishing position. It's all about the the 10th place in the constructors and it's pretty strange to sacrifice one car in a race that is quite often wet and may offer the opportunity to finish a little bit higher than normal.

steveaki13

24th July 2011, 23:33

A better finishing position. It's all about the the 10th place in the constructors and it's pretty strange to sacrifice one car in a race that is quite often wet and may offer the opportunity to finish a little bit higher than normal.

Would agree.

If it had tipped it down for the race, you would fancy Trulli's experience to get him up the field in the event of a crazy race and maybe score a point

Nikki Katz

25th July 2011, 00:56

I guess that we don't know how contracts are worded etc and how much money Chandhok brings to the team. I'm pleased overall that Lotus is fielding two good drivers, so maybe throwing a crap one in every now and then is justifiable, at least to see how he does. He was ok in qualifying all things considered, but in the race he got lapped by a Hispania, so really pretty dreadful.

I wonder if he'll be in for the Indian GP...

steveaki13

25th July 2011, 22:38

As much as he struggled in this race, you would assume if they are going to replace Jarno for one race other than the Indian GP then they must be going to put him into the Car for his home race. To put him in the car in Germany but not India would seem a strange thing to do.

I did wonder whether we would see Jarno again, but he has apparently signed a new contract.

Garry Walker

26th July 2011, 11:21

Any driver can win the title in the fastest car. I thought Nigel Mansell and Damon Hill were also decent peddlers or also-rans, but when they got the absolute fastest car, they brought the title home. Whether Chandhok is better than what he has shown, remains to be seen, at least until he gets a half decent car.

Please tell me you are not comparing Hill and Mansell with Chandok.
For your info, Hill and Mansell both showed a lot without having the best car and impressed against their teammates, something Chandok has never done

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 15:14

Please tell me you are not comparing Hill and Mansell with Chandok.
For your info, Hill and Mansell both showed a lot without having the best car and impressed against their teammates, something Chandok has never done

Where did I compare them? How can you compare Chandhok to any past or present F1 racer when he doesn't even have a full season under his belt? Also, you'd have to be daft to think that either Hill or Mansell were anything more than average drivers.

And when has Hill really impressed? He was finishing dead-last in Brabham until British sponsorship got him into Williams where he was catching up to an out-of-prime retiring Prost. Since then he pretty much had one of the best cars on the grid consistently, and was tooled by Michael Schumacher. Came close to winning the 1994 championship, but the cheating scumbag Schuey got him in the last race. Finally won it in 1996 when Schumacher could no longer challenge, and yet was troubled by his rookie teammate Villenueve. Then chickened out of Williams, and that's that.

Mansell was a much better driver than Hill, and even though he impressed in the years leading up to 1992, you gotta keep in mind that the majority of his career was spent in top tier teams, namely Williams and Ferrari. And he could only win the championship with the 1992 demon Williams with active suspension and hugely superior traction control. This is the same car that Senna was lusting after, and Prost came out of retirement for. He wouldn't have won it either if Senna had a slightly better car.

When they didn't have the absolute best car, they faded away. In modern F1, car performance is almost 80% of the success, and any average driver with moderate consistency can win the championship in the absolute best and reliable car on the grid. Don't tell me you don't believe that.

Garry Walker

26th July 2011, 15:48

Where did I compare them? How can you compare Chandhok to any past or present F1 racer when he doesn't even have a full season under his belt? He had enough races to show something in comparison with his teammate, he didnt show anything. Klien came in and blew Senna away at once, Chandok was regularly getting beaten. On many occasions guys have had to race at first ****ty cars (alonso, Webber, Ayrton Senna, do I have to go on?), but with them destroying their teammates, of course they moved on to better cars. Chandok was unable to show anything against Senna.

Also, you'd have to be daft to think that either Hill or Mansell were anything more than average drivers.Well, if your claim is that Hill and especially Mansell were just average drivers, then I am not going to bother arguing you, but I do recommend (very seriously) that you seek medical help and quickly.

And when has Hill really impressed? He was finishing dead-last in Brabham until British sponsorship got him into Williams where he was catching up to an out-of-prime retiring Prost. Since then he pretty much had one of the best cars on the grid consistently, and was tooled by Michael Schumacher. Came close to winning the 1994 championship, but the cheating scumbag Schuey got him in the last race. Finally won it in 1996 when Schumacher could no longer challenge, and yet was troubled by his rookie teammate Villenueve. Then chickened out of Williams, and that's that. Obviously he impressed enough in that very bad Brabham car to make Williams think he was worthy of the seat.
When did he chicken out of Williams?

Mansell was a much better driver than Hill, and even though he impressed in the years leading up to 1992, you gotta keep in mind that the majority of his career was spent in top tier teams, namely Williams and Ferrari. And he could only win the championship with the 1992 demon Williams with active suspension and hugely superior traction control. This is the same car that Senna was lusting after, and Prost came out of retirement for. He wouldn't have won it either if Senna had a slightly better car.
You alluded to Mansell being an average driver in your post, now I am far from a mansell fan, but to call him an average driver is so stupid that I am not going to waste my time arguing his merits when you come up with such idiotic statements.

When they didn't have the absolute best car, they faded away. In modern F1, car performance is almost 80% of the success, and any average driver with moderate consistency can win the championship in the absolute best and reliable car on the grid. Don't tell me you don't believe that.
Both Hill and Mansell won races in cars that were not the best.
How did you arrive at that 80%? What scientific methods you used to come to that conclusion?

oh and average drivers rarely win titles, even if they are in the best cars.

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 16:29

He had enough races to show something in comparison with his teammate, he didnt show anything. Klien came in and blew Senna away at once, Chandok was regularly getting beaten. On many occasions guys have had to race at first ****ty cars (alonso, Webber, Ayrton Senna, do I have to go on?), but with them destroying their teammates, of course they moved on to better cars. Chandok was unable to show anything against Senna.

Do I really have to go all over European drivers having more experience, sponsorship issues with Asian drivers etc. etc? Believe it or not, years of experience in single seater racing does help. Even if naturally talented, there is still quite some time before there will be a naturally talented + fast and experienced + well sponsored Asian driver.

Well, if your claim is that Hill and especially Mansell were just average drivers, then I am not going to bother arguing you, but I do recommend (very seriously) that you seek medical help and quickly.

Oh yes, I present facts and opinions, and the first thing you do is spew out your usual halfwit baboon IQ level garbage. You are consistent in this though, you never disappoint.

Obviously he impressed enough in that very bad Brabham car to make Williams think he was worthy of the seat.
When did he chicken out of Williams?

What, he impressed by not qualifying and finishing LAST? :laugh: What was the medical help you were talking about? I think you need it desperately. He qualified for a total of TWO races in his time at Brabham. Read again, it was "sponsorship" that got him the seat at Williams, which left all F1 pundits at the time surprised. He chickened out of Williams when the rookie Jacques Villenueve troubled him in 1996. And he signed for Arrows. The dumbest move in F1 history. Villenueve became the 1997 champ BTW.

You alluded to Mansell being an average driver in your post, now I am far from a mansell fan, but to call him an average driver is so stupid that I am not going to waste my time arguing his merits when you come up with such idiotic statements.

If you're not going to waste your time, why even type this much? Quit trolling. Either cut the douchebaggery, talk like civilized people or GTFO and don't bother with this thread if you find such statements idiotic. You are yet to present something worthwhile to make me change my opinion. Prove that Mansell is an amazing driver. All you're talking is the same old, redundant Garry Walker patented rubbish.

Both Hill and Mansell won races in cars that were not the best.

When? Show me. Mansell won all his races while driving for Williams and Ferrari, who finished consistently within the top three in the constructor's championship in those years. Those are not bad cars. He didn't have a snowball's chance in hell when Prost and Senna were winning titles. Finally to win a championship, he needed Prost to retire, Senna to have a crap Mclaren, and for himself to have a VASTLY superior car. How is that a great driver? He would have been an also-ran at best if he wasn't at Williams in 1992.

Same for Hill. He won all his races while driving for Williams Renault, which even a noob would know, was one of the fastest and most dominant cars in the 90s era. After Williams, he won only one more time for Jordan at Spa 1998, when everybody else had problems, and team orders helped him win ahead of Ralf.

oh and average drivers rarely win titles, even if they are in the best cars.

Enter Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell.

Dave B

26th July 2011, 16:45

SOOOO much wrong with that post but I've got to go out so I'll single out this one:

He chickened out of Williams when the rookie Jacques Villenueve troubled him in 1996. And he signed for Arrows. The dumbest move in F1 history. Villenueve became the 1997 champ BTW.

It was well documented that Williams had already decided to let Hill go in favour of Frentzen, he didn't "chicken out" in any way. He then dragged a POS Arrows to within a whiff of its one and only win, before winning in the wet for Jordan - which would have been withh a huge margin had it not been for a late Safety Car.

If it's true that he turned down a McLaren offer over money, then maybe the part about the Arrows move being dumb may be correct - the rest of your post is just laughable.

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 17:10

It was well documented that Williams had already decided to let Hill go in favour of Frentzen, he didn't "chicken out" in any way. He then dragged a POS Arrows to within a whiff of its one and only win, before winning in the wet for Jordan - which would have been withh a huge margin had it not been for a late Safety Car.

If it's true that he turned down a McLaren offer over money, then maybe the part about the Arrows move being dumb may be correct - the rest of your post is just laughable.

Okay, I got that one wrong factually. I now remember there was some dispute between him and Williams at that time. What I do remember is that Mclaren and Ferrari both offered him a seat, and he turned it down in favor of more money from Arrows. Any which way, dumb move. And let's be honest, the win in Jordan was pure luck than "superior driving". Had it not been both the Mclarens and Ferraris out after the disaster at the start and then the restart, and DC vs Michael at Pouhon, it probably wouldn't have been such an easy win, or a win at all.

As for the rest of the post being laughable, is it because we have different opinions regarding one of your favorite drivers or because Damon Hill is the greatest ever and I somehow am blind to see that?

Scotch

26th July 2011, 17:14

Garry Walker

26th July 2011, 17:23

Do I really have to go all over European drivers having more experience, sponsorship issues with Asian drivers etc. etc? Believe it or not, years of experience in single seater racing does help. Even if naturally talented, there is still quite some time before there will be a naturally talented + fast and experienced + well sponsored Asian driver.
With how much experience did Kimi come to F1? Alonso was 19 years old when he came to F1. Chandok has driven in various single seater series for years now, funnily enough he has not impressed in any of them. Chandok has had every chance, he has done nothing. Simple as that.

Oh yes, I present facts and opinions, and the first thing you do is spew out your usual halfwit baboon IQ level garbage. You are consistent in this though, you never disappoint.
What facts? You presented "facts" in a way that would leave your 4th grade teacher wondering about your assessment skills and would mean you would have to repeat the 4th grade, again.

What, he impressed by not qualifying and finishing LAST? :laugh: :laugh: Yeah, obviously in that car it was possible to challenge for wins, the same thing you are complaining people are attacking Chandok for.

What was the medical help you were talking about? I think you need it desperately. He qualified for a total of TWO races in his time at Brabham. Read again, it was "sponsorship" that got him the seat at Williams, which left all F1 pundits at the time surprised.
Hill tested for Williams in 1992, Newey was impressed with him and wanted him for Williams. Whether he got sponsorship or not, I dont remember. You obviously remember, so tell us all what company sponsored him. But I do remember Newey wanting him in the team. Obviously there was a reason for that.

He chickened out of Williams when the rookie Jacques Villenueve troubled him in 1996. And he signed for Arrows. The dumbest move in F1 history. Villenueve became the 1997 champ BTW.
Again you prove you know NOTHING about f1, things were quite a bit different. Because you obviously need a guiding help in every activity, I will provide a helping hand. I just hope you are housebroken, I will not help you with that.
Anyway, after Senna died, Williams wanted Frentzen, but because HHF had a contract with Sauber, he decided not to break it. So they signed him at the first opportunity, which was for 1997. So that was one seat gone. Villeneuve also had a multi-year contract, so Hill knew he was out of the team already since early 1996.
Here endeth the lesson.

If you're not going to waste your time, why even type this much? Quit trolling. Either cut the douchebaggery, talk like civilized people or GTFO and don't bother with this thread if you find such statements idiotic. You are yet to present something worthwhile to make me change my opinion. The problem here is that you are yet to provide anything that would prove Mansell and Hill are just average drivers.

Prove that Mansell is an amazing driver. All you're talking is the same old, redundant Garry Walker patented rubbish.
Where did I say he was an amazing driver? If you ranking of drivers goes like this - Schumacher, Senna, Prost are amazing and the rest are just average, then yes, Mansell was average. If you have an IQ over 25, then of course you will not rank drivers like that.

Why Mansell was a great driver? well, 4th most wins in F1 history, 5th in pole positions, 4th in fastest laps. Beat a 3 time world champion Nelson Piquet in equal cars, faced great drivers in equal cars for most of his career and did well against all of them. Was very close to Alain Prost in equal cars in 1990. Prost wasn`t exactly a nobody, was he? Had to race Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost for most of his career and both men feared him. In fact, was probably the only driver Senna feared when going wheel to wheel. When finally given a dominant car, destroyed his teammate totally and took the title without any problems. One of the best overtakers of all time.
Went to America, won there in his first year. Yeah, just another average driver.

When? Show me. Mansell won all his races while driving for Williams and Ferrari, who finished consistently within the top three in the constructor's championship in those years. Those are not bad cars. He didn't have a snowball's chance in hell when Prost and Senna were winning titles.

Show me a driver who has won most of his races in non-top 3 cars. :laugh: What an incredibly stupid statement from you.
Did you by any chance watch 1986 or 1991?

Finally to win a championship, he needed Prost to retire, Senna to have a crap Mclaren, and for himself to have a VASTLY superior car. How is that a great driver? He would have been an also-ran at best if he wasn't at Williams in 1992.
By the same logic, Senna needed to have a vastly superior McLaren in 1988 and Mansell and Piquet to have crap Williams and Lotus. Fact is, Mansell was very close to winning 3 titles, missed out on those (including one where he was injured and didnt take part in the last 3 races, but he didnt miss out those titles to bad drivers (Prost, Piquet, Senna).
But of course, both Senna and Prost were better drivers than Mansell. But Mansell was better than everyone else, bar those two guys, in his era.

Same for Hill. He won all his races while driving for Williams Renault, which even a noob would know, was one of the fastest and most dominant cars in the 90s era. SHOW ME A DRIVER WHO HAS WON MOST OF HIS RACES IN SLOW CARS.
What kind of a nerd uses the word "noob", really? Do you by any chance play world of warcraft?

After Williams, he won only one more time for Jordan at Spa 1998, when everybody else had problems, and team orders helped him win ahead of Ralf.
He was in front of Ralf for the whole race and without SC, Ralf would never have been even close to him.
Was Hill the only driver to ever benefit from others having problems?
Also, you must be forgetting him almost winning at Hungary the previous year in an Arrows, only to be robbed by a throttle problem in last laps.

Enter Damon Hill and Nigel Mansell. I will put one of your idiotic statements in my sig and laugh for you (and encourage everyone else as well) to laugh at you, like you so throughly deserve.

Garry Walker

26th July 2011, 17:25

SOOOO much wrong with that post but I've got to go out so I'll single out this one:

It was well documented that Williams had already decided to let Hill go in favour of Frentzen, he didn't "chicken out" in any way. He then dragged a POS Arrows to within a whiff of its one and only win, before winning in the wet for Jordan - which would have been withh a huge margin had it not been for a late Safety Car.

If it's true that he turned down a McLaren offer over money, then maybe the part about the Arrows move being dumb may be correct - the rest of your post is just laughable.

I dont often agree with Dave B, it shows a lot when the two of us are in agreement over something.

Garry Walker

26th July 2011, 17:26

Okay, I got that one wrong factually. I now remember there was some dispute between him and Williams at that time. What I do remember is that Mclaren and Ferrari both offered him a seat, and he turned it down in favor of more money from Arrows. Any which way, dumb move. And let's be honest, the win in Jordan was pure luck than "superior driving". Had it not been both the Mclarens and Ferraris out after the disaster at the start and then the restart, and DC vs Michael at Pouhon, it probably wouldn't have been such an easy win, or a win at all.

As for the rest of the post being laughable, is it because we have different opinions regarding one of your favorite drivers or because Damon Hill is the greatest ever and I somehow am blind to see that?
Hill turned down McLaren for 1998, not for 1997. Well, not exactly turned down, but demanded too much salary. I dont remember Ferrari having made him an offer, they made an offer to DC, as far as I remember.

I would love for you to show me a post on this forum where someone says Hill is one of the best of all times.

Koz

26th July 2011, 17:55

Believe it or not, years of experience in single seater racing does help. Even if naturally talented, there is still quite some time before there will be a naturally talented + fast and experienced + well sponsored Asian driver.

Example?

How much pre-F1 experience did Raikkonen, Alonso, Hamilton (among many others) have compared to KC?

This is like saying Matthew Wilson will be faster if he has more experience. Perhaps we should get a few 5-year-plans for KC, too.

Malbec

26th July 2011, 18:06

Even if naturally talented, there is still quite some time before there will be a naturally talented + fast and experienced + well sponsored Asian driver.

I can name two already.

Prince Bira and Kobayashi, although the latter doesn't come with money.

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 18:10

With how much experience did Kimi come to F1? Alonso was 19 years old when he came to F1. Chandok has driven in various single seater series for years now, funnily enough he has not impressed in any of them. Chandok has had every chance, he has done nothing. Simple as that.

Kimi and Alonso started karting at the ages of 7-8. When did Chandhok start? 15. Also, by the time Alonso and Kimi got to F1, they already had at least a decade of experience in winged single seater cars, understanding of aerodynamics and setup. It took Chandhok another half a decade to get to a decent single seater championship outside Asia. Don't talk bull$hit without research, but I guess you'd continue your doctorate in this area.

Hill tested for Williams in 1992, Newey was impressed with him and wanted him for Williams. Whether he got sponsorship or not, I dont remember. You obviously remember, so tell us all what company sponsored him. But I do remember Newey wanting him in the team. Obviously there was a reason for that.

And I suppose being the son of a former F1 champion and being British also doesn't help. I wouldn't know which sponsor sponsored him, but I remember reading that he was riding on good sponsorship money. Do you want me to find exactly the name of the sponsor or find a source regarding this story in 1993?? Do you always back up what you say? Never, because half the time you're trolling anyway.

Why Mansell was a great driver? well, 4th most wins in F1 history, 5th in pole positions, 4th in fastest laps.

Yeah, while driving for top teams for the majority of his career. Also, his problem was that he wasn't consistent enough. He would show flashes of brilliance and then give sub-par performances again. Consistency is what separates great drivers from average drivers. You would know, you support that cheat scumbag, what's his name, that German guy, the most consistent driver, also the biggest cheater ever.

Beat a 3 time world champion Nelson Piquet in equal cars, faced great drivers in equal cars for most of his career and did well against all of them. Was very close to Alain Prost in equal cars in 1990. Prost wasn`t exactly a nobody, was he? Had to race Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost for most of his career and both men feared him.

Both men feared him? :laugh: Got any more over-exaggerated quotes to try to glamorize your post some more? Also, was close to Prost in 1990?? He finished 5th where Prost almost won the championship, and had half the points of Prost. THAT is what you call close? Your idiocy has now reached new levels. Also, Gerhard Berger as Senna's teammate did much better than what Mansell achieved in 1990. So, Berger is also a great driver now?

In fact, was probably the only driver Senna feared when going wheel to wheel. When finally given a dominant car, destroyed his teammate totally and took the title without any problems. One of the best overtakers of all time.

More idiotic crap continues. Wow, you can go back in time and read Senna's mind, and probably understand Portuguese as well. The teammate he "destroyed" in 1992 was Ricardo Patrese in his penultimate year before retiring, who was at best another Barrichello. And the car was so dominant, that if Mansell wasn't there, even a driver like Patrese would have won the championship because he finished second.

Went to America, won there in his first year. Yeah, just another average driver.

Yeah, in the same team/car that "Michael Andretti" won the championship two years before in 1991. Wow, what an achievement! What's next, Michael Andretti also a great F1 driver? GTFO!

By the same logic, Senna needed to have a vastly superior McLaren in 1988 and Mansell and Piquet to have crap Williams and Lotus. Fact is, Mansell was very close to winning 3 titles, missed out on those (including one where he was injured and didnt take part in the last 3 races, but he didnt miss out those titles to bad drivers (Prost, Piquet, Senna). But of course, both Senna and Prost were better drivers than Mansell. But Mansell was better than everyone else, bar those two guys, in his era.

SHOW ME A DRIVER WHO HAS WON MOST OF HIS RACES IN SLOW CARS.

*Have to be kind to slow people.* Do you have an impairment? Is it difficult for you to understand plain English? He has never impressed in slow cars like Senna did in the Toleman or Schumacher did in the Ferrari etc. He was big guns when he had one of the best cars on the grid. Without that, he was nothing.

What kind of a nerd uses the word "noob", really? Do you by any chance play world of warcraft?

Yeah, it's fairly new lingo, not for an elderly like you. Sorry uncle, I'll use nincompoop from now on. Oh, and don't even bother with WOW, you won't be able to handle it.

He was in front of Ralf for the whole race and without SC, Ralf would never have been even close to him. Was Hill the only driver to ever benefit from others having problems? Also, you must be forgetting him almost winning at Hungary the previous year in an Arrows, only to be robbed by a throttle problem in last laps.

That was how much, two incidents in TWO years, and he's all of a sudden a great driver? Giancarlo Fisichella at Benetton and Jarno Trulli at Prost Peugeot have had better things to show during their tenure in crap teams. So then they must also be really great drivers.

I will put one of your idiotic statements in my sig and laugh for you (and encourage everyone else as well) to laugh at you, like you so throughly deserve.

Are you the same guy who just got his panties up in a bunch over the word "noob", and now you're going to put my statements in your sig and laugh alone in your basement? Please go ahead and be my guest, and display your amazing maturity some more. Something bad certainly happened to you during your childhood.

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 18:17

I can name two already.

Prince Bira and Kobayashi, although the latter doesn't come with money.

Here is the past history of Kobayashi. Don't forget that he was the Toyota test driver for two years, 2007 and 2008. Did Chandhok ever test for any team extensively, got any significant F1 mileage? I don't think so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamui_Kobayashi

[quote="Kamui Kobayashi"]Career summary
Season Series Team Races Wins Poles F/Laps Podiums Points Position
2003 Formula Toyota N/A 10 2 4 ? ? 120 2nd
2004 Formula Renault 2000 Italy Prema Powerteam 17 2 3 1 3 134 7th
Formula Renault 2000 Germany 2 0 0 0 0 16 31st
Formula Renault 2000 Netherlands ? ? ? ? ? 32 15th
Asian Formula Renault Challenge Asia Racing Team 1 0 0 ? 0 16 31st
2005 Formula Renault Eurocup Prema Powerteam 16 6 4 4 8 157 1st
Formula Renault 2.0 Italy 15 6 9 8 11 312 1st
2006 Formula Three Euroseries ASM Formule 3 19 0 0 1 3 34 8th
Macau Grand Prix 1 0 1 0 0 N/A 19th
Masters of Formula 3 1 0 0 0 0 N/A 11th
2007 Formula Three Euroseries ASM Formule 3 20 1 1 0 7 59 4th
Macau Grand Prix 1 0 0 0 0 N/A 13th
Masters of Formula 3 1 0 0 0 0 N/A NC
Formula One Toyota Racing Test driver
2008 GP2 Asia Series DAMS 10 2 0 0 3 22 6th
GP2 Series 20 1 0 2 1 10 16th
Formula One Toyota Racing Test driver
2008&#8211]

And here is Karun Chandhok's career summary. Note the amount of experience Chandhok has had compared to Kobayashi. Also note that Formula Maruti is a wingless single seater car, kind of like a buggy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karun_Chandhok

[quote="Karun Chandhok"]Career summary
Season Series Team Races Wins Poles F/Laps Podiums Points Position
2000 Formula Maruti ? 10 7 10 ? 10 ? 1st
2001 Formula 2000 Asia SMR Team India 14 8 ? ? 13 246 1st
2002 British F3 National Class T-Sport 25 0 0 1 7 156 6th
2003 British F3 National Class T-Sport 24 7 7 2 20 314.5 3rd
2004 British Formula Three T-Sport 17 0 0 0 0 37 14th
World Series by Nissan Tata RC Motorsport 2 0 0 0 0 11 16th
2005 Formula Renault 3.5 Series RC Motorsport 5 0 0 0 0 0 29th
2005&#8211]

Malbec

26th July 2011, 19:55

And here is Karun Chandhok's career summary. Note the amount of experience Chandhok has had compared to Kobayashi. Also note that Formula Maruti is a wingless single seater car, kind of like a buggy.

Karun Chandhok - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karun_Chandhok)

I watched Karun in F3 just as I did Narain.

F3 is interesting because its bloody expensive and it shakes out the truly talented and the truly wealthy. If you're merely very very good you'll find one season of F3 will suck all the money you had out of you and you need serious backing or a team willing to pay for you to keep you on for a second season or more.

Karun had two goes at the lower national class then a year in the top class where he didn't really achieve much. His career didn't peter out however because he had serious financial backing from somewhere.

Same goes for Narain. Someone paid a lot of money to keep him in F3 for several seasons while other drivers just as talented or better ran out of cash or had their talent recognised and moved up. Drivers like Mark Webber and Takuma Sato or Andre Lotterer who went on to make a good living in Japan I believe.

Without their financial backers neither driver would have made it beyond F3. If they were British without a sugar daddy they wouldn't have.

You mentioned Hill and you're right, he wasn't THAT special in F3 but what was very clear was that this guy was incredibly driven despite being soft spoken. He had a privileged upbringing, enrolled in private school until his father died when he was 15. His father's business had massive debts and he hadn't bothered paying for life insurance nor checked how much fuel was in the plane before the plane crashed on the approach to Elstree aerodrome. Damon Hill went from upper middle class utopia to debt ridden hell overnight.

Thats why he abandoned education and started oddjobs, working his way up to being a motorbike courier before becoming a racer. No he didn't have a big sponsor driving him but he DID have his father's name and considerable sympathy from the paddock on his way up. It wasn't easy for him either because even he'd accept he was never the most talented driver out there and he had to endure having a child born with Downs (I think) while in F3 which almost brought his marriage to an end. He didn't have it easy.

BTW Kobayashi didn't have serious funding or backing until Toyota picked him up. His Toyota backing was most important for two specific races, Brazil and Abu Dhabi 2009. Everything else has been purely down to his ability. Even now having become more famous he still can't bring any money to Sauber with him.

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 20:32

Well, probably I was wrong in calling Hill and Mansell "average". Mea Culpa. I myself don't consider them average, but I don't consider them great drivers either. They were good on their day and honestly IMO they wouldn't have won their respective championships unless they had the absolute fastest AND reliable car, which they did in 1992 and 1996. They probably wouldn't have won in scenarios like Senna in 1991, Schumacher in 1994, 2000 and 2003, Hakkinen in 1999, Kimi in 2007 or Hamilton in 2008. They didn't have to fight tooth and nails, because they just didn't have any opposition because of having hugely superior machinery. They had the the Adrian Newey designed absolute best Williams Renault for their championships, and IMHO there are a lot of other midfield or backmarker drivers that would have also won in those cars. In fact, the 1991 Williams was also the best car on the grid, but Senna was the factor that won Mclaren the championship.

DexDexter

26th July 2011, 20:37

8 tenths is not a bad gap to Heikki, especially given he was starting from about 2.5secs in FP1, I dkn't think he is a bad driver by any means, he's not likely to win any titles, but he's a decent peddler.

Yeah, he made progress in every session. One race weekend isn't enough time to judge really.

Mind you that Heikki had a bad qualifying and messed his second run so 8 tenths is not the real gap between the two. The race pace told the true story. It's a really difficult for anyone to do well in a one-off situation so that's why (as I stated earlier) I feel it's a waste of a car (and driver) to do this type of a swap.

Malbec

26th July 2011, 20:42

It's a really difficult for anyone to do well in a one-off situation so that's why (as I stated earlier) I feel it's a waste of a car (and driver) to do this type of a swap.

Which is why I have a feeling that despite all the talk this swap will be permanent... Have the Lotus drivers been announced for Hungary yet?

CaptainRaiden

26th July 2011, 20:56

Also, I am in no way defending Karun Chandhok as a good driver. I know he's been pretty crap in F1 and in his career before it. But like I said before in this thread, it's difficult for a driver from this part of the world to gain any valuable car setup/aerodynamics experience before graduating to a single seater series' in Europe. I know it first hand, I was a hopeful once during my karting career, but gave up because my pockets weren't deep enough.

Most of the guys from Southeast Asia have had horrible F1 careers, Narain and Karun, Alex Yoong, Fairuz Fauzy etc unless they have had solid career building in Europe since they were a kid. There is a huge difference, because there just aren't enough winged single seater series' one can take part in to gain that valuable knowledge about car setups and aerodynamics. Most of the Southeast Asian guys who get to a respectable single seater series in Europe are completely clueless about those cars. Plus none of the major manufacturers are based in that area, so it becomes harder to get any real sponsorship going as well. Very different for Japan though, that is an anomaly, as they have so many car and bike manufacturers, the road to grand prix racing is easier for Japanese drivers.

Garry Walker

27th July 2011, 19:50

Kimi and Alonso started karting at the ages of 7-8. When did Chandhok start? 15. Also, by the time Alonso and Kimi got to F1, they already had at least a decade of experience in winged single seater cars, understanding of aerodynamics and setup. Sato started karting at 19, but still made it to F1 and did relatively well.
As for experience with single seaters, you have been exposed once again. Kimi had done about 20 races in single seaters before he tested Sauber and was successful in that test. Alonso only had 2 years of experience, so FAR less than Karun has by now. Yeah, they both had a decade of experience LOL.

It took Chandhok another half a decade to get to a decent single seater championship outside Asia. Don't talk bull$hit without research, but I guess you'd continue your doctorate in this area. If he had shown any skills, he would have achieved it earlier. Sadly for him (and you), he didnt.
Let`s be honest, Chandok`s career in single seaters has been not special at all, he has shown nothing beyond being mediocre.

And I suppose being the son of a former F1 champion and being British also doesn't help. It didn`t hurt and I am sure it helped in opening a few doors, but it was not the final factor in getting seats. He had to shown competence and speed.

I wouldn't know which sponsor sponsored him, but I remember reading that he was riding on good sponsorship money. Do you want me to find exactly the name of the sponsor or find a source regarding this story in 1993?? Do you always back up what you say? Never, because half the time you're trolling anyway.Yes, find proof of your claim or admit you were wrong. It is such a central point in your argument that you have to be able to prove it, otherwise you end up looking pretty silly.

Yeah, while driving for top teams for the majority of his career. Also, his problem was that he wasn't consistent enough. He would show flashes of brilliance and then give sub-par performances again. Consistency is what separates great drivers from average drivers. You would know, you support that cheat scumbag, what's his name, that German guy, the most consistent driver, also the biggest cheater ever.With the exception of very few drivers, most drivers in F1 have a varied level of driving in their races. Mansell had enough of those brilliant days and I don`t think consistency was his weak point. But of course, he wasn`t Senna or Schumacher. But who are?

Both men feared him? :laugh: Got any more over-exaggerated quotes to try to glamorize your post some more? Also, was close to Prost in 1990?? He finished 5th where Prost almost won the championship, and had half the points of Prost.You once again show your stupidity. Mansell retired from 8 races that year due to his car failing him. That is 50% of all races that year. His pace was all through the year close to Prost as well, he had more poles and fastest laps than Prost. Of course, Prost was the superior and smarter driver, but Mansell was very fast and threatened him very often. But I know you didnt watch that season, so it s lovely to see you make a fool of yourself.
So yes, Senna and Prost both feared Mansell, especially due to his bravery.

More idiotic crap continues. Wow, you can go back in time and read Senna's mind, and probably understand Portuguese as well. The teammate he "destroyed" in 1992 was Ricardo Patrese in his penultimate year before retiring, who was at best another Barrichello. And the car was so dominant, that if Mansell wasn't there, even a driver like Patrese would have won the championship because he finished second. Well, does it devalue Schumacher that Barrichello too would have won in those Ferraris? Does it devalue Senna or Prost that some of the cars they had in their careers were FAR above what anyone else?
I will stand by what I said about Senna being vary of Mansell when racing wheel to wheel. He knew that Mansell was as brave as they get and knew well that when someone like Prost would get intimidated, Mansell wouldn`t.

Yeah, in the same team/car that "Michael Andretti" won the championship two years before in 1991. Wow, what an achievement! What's next, Michael Andretti also a great F1 driver? GTFO!Why are you commenting on years when you werent watching F1? Andretti was a fool, didnt take things seriously enough, had to deal with a complicated car and stayed in America all that time. Had he dedicated himself properly, he would have been far better in F1 (although obviously nowhere near Senna/schumacher quality). But in CART, Andretti was VERY competent. It was not an easy series to win.

*Have to be kind to slow people.* Do you have an impairment? Is it difficult for you to understand plain English? He has never impressed in slow cars like Senna did in the Toleman or Schumacher did in the Ferrari etc. He was big guns when he had one of the best cars on the grid. Without that, he was nothing.
Newsflash, dumb-dumb. No one is anything without a great car, unless very special circumstances come to play. That is what happened with Senna at Toleman when it rained at Monaco. For most part of the season he did nothing, because the car was just too bad. In anycase, I dont see why you are bringing in Senna and Schumacher here? They are 2 of the best 3 drivers of all time and no one sane would think Mansell was as good as them. Nor have I ever claimed Mansell was as good as them.

Yeah, it's fairly new lingo, not for an elderly like you. Sorry uncle, I'll use nincompoop from now on. Oh, and don't even bother with WOW, you won't be able to handle it.LOL You have no idea how old I am.
Secondly, you didnt answer. Do you play World of warcraft?

That was how much, two incidents in TWO years, and he's all of a sudden a great driver? Giancarlo Fisichella at Benetton and Jarno Trulli at Prost Peugeot have had better things to show during their tenure in crap teams. So then they must also be really great drivers.Fisichella proved at Renault just how great of a driver he is. Actually, I think Fisichella was very talented, but was mentally very weak. That is why he failed at Renault when the pressure was on, but showed a lot of promise with weaker cars when there was no such pressure.

Are you the same guy who just got his panties up in a bunch over the word "noob", and now you're going to put my statements in your sig and laugh alone in your basement? Please go ahead and be my guest, and display your amazing maturity some more. Something bad certainly happened to you during your childhood. Something bad happened to me when I joined this forum, namely, I met someone like you.

You have also not answered some of the questions I asked you. To help you, I will bring them up again here. If you have problems putting them in context, then please just read our discussion again to help you get on track.
1) Show me a driver who has won most of his races in non-top 3 cars?
2) Did you by any chance watch 1986 or 1991?
3) SHOW ME A DRIVER WHO HAS WON MOST OF HIS RACES IN SLOW CARS?

Garry Walker

27th July 2011, 20:02

Well, probably I was wrong in calling Hill and Mansell "average". We are getting somewhere.

Mea Culpa. I myself don't consider them average, but I don't consider them great drivers either. They were good on their day and honestly IMO they wouldn't have won their respective championships unless they had the absolute fastest AND reliable car, which they did in 1992 and 1996.There have been a maximum of 4-5 drivers in history who have been capable of winning without the best car. So I would like to know how you rate all time greats in F1.

I will give you my view on things.
Firstly we have the best of the best (Fangio, Clark, Prost, Senna, Schumacher)
Then we have those drivers who can easily be called great drivers - Moss, Brabham, Ascari, Stewart, Lauda, Mansell, Piquet.
Then we have very good drivers who are a little below those previously mentioned, here I would put guys like Farina, G.Hill, Fittipaldi, Häkkinen, D.Hill, Jones, Rindt, Kimi, probably a couple more.

I will not include drivers still racing in my list.

They probably wouldn't have won in scenarios like Senna in 1991, Schumacher in 1994, 2000 and 2003, Hakkinen in 1999, Kimi in 2007 or Hamilton in 2008. They didn't have to fight tooth and nails, because they just didn't have any opposition because of having hugely superior machinery.
In quite a few of these, the driver winning the title had the best car of the year, so I dont see why Mansell wouldnt have been able to win in such cars.

CaptainRaiden

27th July 2011, 21:53

Sato started karting at 19, but still made it to F1 and did relatively well.
As for experience with single seaters, you have been exposed once again. Kimi had done about 20 races in single seaters before he tested Sauber and was successful in that test. Alonso only had 2 years of experience, so FAR less than Karun has by now. Yeah, they both had a decade of experience LOL.

Show me where in this thread have I said that Karun is a special talent? All I said was it's a harder road to F1 for Southeast Asian drivers than European talent. And as you have proven here, how easily Alonso and Kimi got into F1. Sure, the obvious talent is there, but they also drove into F1 on good sponsorship money. Kimi with Finlandia and Red Bull, and Alonso with Spanish banks Mutua Madrilena and Santander and other European sponsorship which helps them get test drives or pay drives. I admit I was wrong about them having more single-seater experience.

If he had shown any skills, he would have achieved it earlier. Sadly for him (and you), he didnt.
Let`s be honest, Chandok`s career in single seaters has been not special at all, he has shown nothing beyond being mediocre.

Agreed. I never said he showed anything mercurial. But his GP2 career and other formulas has been equal to or more impressive than guys like Kobayashi, Buemi, Liuzzi, Ricciardo, and Sutil. So, if they have gotten to F1, there's no reason why I don't see he should be denied a chance, as long as they pay for it.

It didn`t hurt and I am sure it helped in opening a few doors, but it was not the final factor in getting seats. He had to shown competence and speed.
Yes, find proof of your claim or admit you were wrong. It is such a central point in your argument that you have to be able to prove it, otherwise you end up looking pretty silly.

I don't think such a small detail would be in somebody's archives over the internet, and I can't be bothered to waste time searching for it, so you'd just have to take my word for it that I read it in a magazine years ago. But if you use some logic, how does Williams give a test to a guy who was pretty much beaten by an also ran teammate at Brabham, and qualified for a total of two races in 1991? Winky winky.

With the exception of very few drivers, most drivers in F1 have a varied level of driving in their races. Mansell had enough of those brilliant days and I don`t think consistency was his weak point. But of course, he wasn`t Senna or Schumacher. But who are?

Then he is simply not a great driver. Not an average driver, but not a great driver either.

You once again show your stupidity. Mansell retired from 8 races that year due to his car failing him. That is 50% of all races that year. His pace was all through the year close to Prost as well, he had more poles and fastest laps than Prost. Of course, Prost was the superior and smarter driver, but Mansell was very fast and threatened him very often. But I know you didnt watch that season, so it s lovely to see you make a fool of yourself.
So yes, Senna and Prost both feared Mansell, especially due to his bravery.

Yes, keep making more assumptions and claim to read driver's minds. Did Prost and Senna tell you that personally? Makes you look like a bigger idiot than you show on this forum, which is a hugely difficult task because the number one idiot status cannot be equaled. True that the mechanical failures prevented us from seeing what would have really happened, but at the end of the day coulda, woulda, shouldas can change the perception of any driver's career.

Why are you commenting on years when you werent watching F1? Andretti was a fool, didnt take things seriously enough, had to deal with a complicated car and stayed in America all that time. Had he dedicated himself properly, he would have been far better in F1 (although obviously nowhere near Senna/schumacher quality). But in CART, Andretti was VERY competent. It was not an easy series to win.

More idiotic assumptions and amazing driver mind readings follow. You assume I didn't watch that season? You also know that Andretti didn't take F1 seriously enough, because he's your little love puppy and confided in you. He was BUTCHERED by Senna during his year at Mclaren, which tells a lot about his driving talent. His CART championship also came driving one of the best cars for the best teams, same car/team in which Mansell drove to win his championship. Some of Mansell's other career highs are more impressive, this one isn't, so just shut it.

Newsflash, dumb-dumb. No one is anything without a great car, unless very special circumstances come to play. That is what happened with Senna at Toleman when it rained at Monaco. For most part of the season he did nothing, because the car was just too bad. In anycase, I dont see why you are bringing in Senna and Schumacher here? They are 2 of the best 3 drivers of all time and no one sane would think Mansell was as good as them. Nor have I ever claimed Mansell was as good as them.

Again, knob goblin, if you go back and read my post again, I said that Mansell's career stats are impressive, but he spent the majority of his career at Williams, one of the best cars, and all he has is one championship to show for it, where he needed a lot of things to go wrong with his rivals. Williams would have won that year's championship with or without Mansell, their car was THAT good.

LOL You have no idea how old I am.

Judging by your asinine posts and senile comments, 92, 93? Also, it's interesting how you don't like the word "noob", but yet use LOL everywhere like five year old girl high on prozac overdose.

Secondly, you didnt answer. Do you play World of warcraft?

No, I don't. And I'm guessing you're one of those guys who calls gamers "geeks" or "nerds" while you go to bars for a guys night out, get drunk and bump chests.

As for your questions:

1) Show me a driver who has won most of his races in non-top 3 cars?

What does this question have to do with anything? Face it, Mansell drove for top teams all his life, and has one championship to show for it which was achieved in 1992 in probably one of the most dominant cars ever. There are no drivers who achieved most success in slow cars, and that's why I said that in modern F1, car performance is a huge part of success. While some drivers win championships in equal cars, some of them need only the absolute best to pull it off, ex. Mansell and Hill.

2) Did you by any chance watch 1986 or 1991?

Didn't watch 86, but I have watched every season since 1987.

3) SHOW ME A DRIVER WHO HAS WON MOST OF HIS RACES IN SLOW CARS?

See the answer to question 1.

CaptainRaiden

27th July 2011, 22:14

We are getting somewhere.

Not far though.

There have been a maximum of 4-5 drivers in history who have been capable of winning without the best car. So I would like to know how you rate all time greats in F1.

I will give you my view on things.
Firstly we have the best of the best (Fangio, Clark, Prost, Senna, Schumacher)
Then we have those drivers who can easily be called great drivers - Moss, Brabham, Ascari, Stewart, Lauda, Mansell, Piquet.
Then we have very good drivers who are a little below those previously mentioned, here I would put guys like Farina, G.Hill, Fittipaldi, Häkkinen, D.Hill, Jones, Rindt, Kimi, probably a couple more.

That's a stupid list. Schumacher doesn't belong in the best of the best. Here is my more accurate list.

Greatest: Clark, Fangio, Senna, Prost.
Great drivers: Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Fittipaldi, Brabham, Moss, Hakkinen, Schumacher, Raikkonen.
Good drivers: Mansell, Hill, Hunt, Scheckter, Rindt, Andretti
Cheating scumbags: Michael Schumacher (Also had one of the best and dominant cars in the Ferrari era, and is now getting exposed by Rosberg)

In quite a few of these, the driver winning the title had the best car of the year, so I dont see why Mansell wouldnt have been able to win in such cars.

Wrong. Hakkinen didn't have the absolute best and reliable car in 1999. The Ferrari in 1999 was a good car and didn't fail as much as the Mclaren. 5 retirements for Mika compared to Irvine's one. Hakkinen probably would have won 2000 as well if the Mclaren was more reliable and didn't fail at Indianapolis. Kimi won the 2007 title when the Ferrari wasn't the absolute fastest car. Hamilton won in 2008 again in a car pretty much equal with the Ferrari. I just don't see Mansell or Hill winning in these scenarios. When they won, they had the best car by a long mile, and their only competition was their teammate, which in Mansell's case was Patrese towards the twilight of his career.

Malbec

28th July 2011, 11:06

But if you use some logic, how does Williams give a test to a guy who was pretty much beaten by an also ran teammate at Brabham, and qualified for a total of two races in 1991? Winky winky.

Because teams often look beyond on-paper results. Many drivers have a paddock reputation that isn't matched by their statistics. You're right, Hill didn't do well at Brabham but Williams felt he'd make a great test driver.

Mansell did so badly at Lotus that Peter Warr who ran the team said he'd never win a race as long as I've got an asshole. Williams though felt that he was the man for them. He didn't do badly for them did he?

More idiotic assumptions and amazing driver mind readings follow. You assume I didn't watch that season? You also know that Andretti didn't take F1 seriously enough, because he's your little love puppy and confided in you. He was BUTCHERED by Senna during his year at Mclaren, which tells a lot about his driving talent. His CART championship also came driving one of the best cars for the best teams, same car/team in which Mansell drove to win his championship. Some of Mansell's other career highs are more impressive, this one isn't, so just shut it.

I don't often agree with Garry Walker but he's right about this one. Michael Andretti was in his comfort zone when driving in the US. He didn't commit fully to his F1 career, commuting from the US and spending as little time as possible working at McLaren or getting to grips with the different conditions encountered in F1. I can't think of a recent driver who has had a more cavalier attitude towards F1, even his father has spoken about his disappointment at his son's attitude. With a merely capable teammate he'd have done badly but he ended up with Senna who simply embarrassed him. His performance in F1 is not indicative of his normal abilities which he amply demonstrated in the US.

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 12:54

Because teams often look beyond on-paper results. Many drivers have a paddock reputation that isn't matched by their statistics. You're right, Hill didn't do well at Brabham but Williams felt he'd make a great test driver.

Then that could probably be the same thing for Chandhok too. Probably his paddock reputation is what got him into F1. About Hill, what I read in a magazine was that his sponsors sweetened the deal with Williams while Hill was in the testing role. Of course he impressed Frank with his times in testing too, and landed the seat. But a guy who qualified two times in 1992 and goes straight to the championship winning Williams' second seat is a bit weird, isn't it?

Mansell did so badly at Lotus that Peter Warr who ran the team said he'd never win a race as long as I've got an asshole. Williams though felt that he was the man for them. He didn't do badly for them did he?

Not too bad, but probably, and this is only my humble opinion, Prost or Senna would have won more championships for Williams, not just 1992.

I don't often agree with Garry Walker but he's right about this one. Michael Andretti was in his comfort zone when driving in the US. He didn't commit fully to his F1 career, commuting from the US and spending as little time as possible working at McLaren or getting to grips with the different conditions encountered in F1. I can't think of a recent driver who has had a more cavalier attitude towards F1, even his father has spoken about his disappointment at his son's attitude. With a merely capable teammate he'd have done badly but he ended up with Senna who simply embarrassed him. His performance in F1 is not indicative of his normal abilities which he amply demonstrated in the US.

I'm not so sure how well Andretti really would have done. While I agree that his choice to commute across continents really hurt his chances, he probably wasn't that talented anyway. And let's be honest, Senna would have wiped the floor with him anyway. The only two drivers who came from American racing and did well in F1 were his dad Mario, and JP Montoya. Phil Hill doesn't count because he started his racing career in Europe. And it was fairly easy for Montoya to win CART, same as Mansell, in his rookie year, also Bourdais won four Champcar championships, but these guys were pretty much outperformed by better teammates in F1. Montoya did very well for himself at Williams, even fought for the championship in 2003, at least until he went to Mclaren and got Kimi'ed.

So, my point being that usually guys who have historically come from CART or Champcar into F1 have not done very well. Guys like Montoya who mopped the floor in CART 1999 in his rookie year, was pretty average and inconsistent in F1 for a while before losing his touch. It's the same in motorcycle racing, where guys coming from SBK to MotoGP have pretty much been average. Ben Spies who took the WSBK world by storm by winning the championship in his rookie year, can't touch Lorenzo on his good day in MotoGP on the same bike.

I think it's obvious that in single seater racing terms, CART and Champcar were inferior championships to F1, and so it was fairly easy for Mansell to go over there and blitz them in a car/team combination which was already very successful, no different to what he did in F1 in 1992.

Hawkmoon

28th July 2011, 13:20

This thread must have set a record for highest number of stupidly long posts! :)

I think the only thing that needs to be said of Chandhok in Germany is that he finished 2 laps behind his teammate and was lapped by Ricciardo. In only his 2nd race. In a HRT. Do we really need to keep dicussing Chandhok's 'quality'?

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 13:49

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 13:57

I think the only thing that needs to be said of Chandhok in Germany is that he finished 2 laps behind his teammate and was lapped by Ricciardo. In only his 2nd race. In a HRT. Do we really need to keep dicussing Chandhok's 'quality'?

Another Aussie hyping up Ricciardo, ooh, what a surprise. You forgot to mention one key detail. Ricciardo did winter testing for Red Bull, then Torro Rosso, then ran in Friday practice a couple of times this year before getting into the HRT and getting blitzed by Liuzzi. While Nurburgring Friday practice was the first time Chandhok has driven a 2011 car on Pirelli tyres. Considering this, his qualy performance was pretty good. But as somebody else said in this thread, it was more Heikki messing up his qualy than Chandhok doing good.

Chandhok never did a race distance on Pirelli tyres, didn't have a clue how they behave after being worn down, and hence the mediocre performance mid-race onwards plus he ran out of talent, which is not much already. ;)

Koz

28th July 2011, 14:31

While Nurburgring Friday practice was the first time Chandhok has driven a 2011 car on Pirelli tyres.

Are you sure about that?

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 14:46

Are you sure about that?

Apart from an installation lap at the Australian GP, he didn't drive the 2011 car or tested the Pirelli tyres until the German GP. His surprise regarding the Pirellis: Chandhok surprised by tyre degradation rate - GPUpdate.net (http://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/264975/chandhok-surprised-by-tyre-degradation-rate/)

Ricciardo meanwhile has done winter testing duties at the end of 2010, beginning of 2011 and Friday practice third driver duties during the season, racking up more than enough mileage.

Malbec

28th July 2011, 14:47

Then that could probably be the same thing for Chandhok too.

If I was running a back of the grid team I'd hire Chandhok too but not because of his driving abilities. He's very articulate and clearly extremely passionate about his sport and he'd be a good team ambassador, even a good ambassador for the sport itself. I'd agree with you on this one, but Chandhok has a different paddock reputation from the type I talk about with Hill and Mansell. I don't quite know what Williams saw in Mansell but Hill was taken on as a test driver because he's intelligent and articulate. He was taken on as a full on driver partly because of circumstance.

But a guy who qualified two times in 1992 and goes straight to the championship winning Williams' second seat is a bit weird, isn't it?

As wierd as a new Spaniard going from a pointless Minardi season to be groomed by a championship winning Renault team too, or Schumacher going from one race, sorry not even that but two or three corners in a midfield team before being snapped up by a better team.

I'm not so sure how well Andretti really would have done. While I agree that his choice to commute across continents really hurt his chances, he probably wasn't that talented anyway. And let's be honest, Senna would have wiped the floor with him anyway. The only two drivers who came from American racing and did well in F1 were his dad Mario, and JP Montoya. Phil Hill doesn't count because he started his racing career in Europe. And it was fairly easy for Montoya to win CART, same as Mansell, in his rookie year, also Bourdais won four Champcar championships, but these guys were pretty much outperformed by better teammates in F1. Montoya did very well for himself at Williams, even fought for the championship in 2003, at least until he went to Mclaren and got Kimi'ed.

Its a BIG mistake to denigrate the quality of Indycar back in the 90s and equate it with modern day champcar. When Montoya and Bourdais were winning in Champcar it was a dying championship, not the same as back in the late 80s, early 90s when teams were still constructing their own chassis and top American and European drivers were still attracted to it rather than going NASCAR. Don't try to simplify things. Andretti and Mansell won in Indy when it was a whole different ballgame to what passes for it now.

Koz

28th July 2011, 15:01

Apart from an installation lap at the Australian GP, he didn't drive the 2011 car or tested the Pirelli tyres until the German GP.

So I take it this is wrong: Britain 2011 - Free practice 1 results // Sidepodcast : All for F1, and F1 for All (http://sidepodcast.com/post/britain-2011-free-practice-1-results)

SGWilko

28th July 2011, 15:04

So I take it this is wrong: Britain 2011 - Free practice 1 results // Sidepodcast : All for F1, and F1 for All (http://sidepodcast.com/post/britain-2011-free-practice-1-results)

I see Mars is probing the rings around Uranus....

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 15:04

Koz

28th July 2011, 15:09

Okay, I didn't know that, can't keep track of one-off appearances. 17 laps is still much lesser mileage compared to Ricciardo.

Hum, but 10 odd races from last year don't count for anything, I guess?

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 15:16

Hum, but 10 odd races from last year don't count for anything, I guess?

Have you bothered to read the previous posts? "PIRELLI" tyres is the difference. Mark Webber admitted to struggling with them: F1: Webber admits struggle with Pirelli tyre switch (http://www.inautonews.com/f1-webber-admits-struggle-with-pirelli-tyre-switch) - Chandhok is much less talented.

Do you expect an average driver to come back after a year for a one-off appearance, learn how the Pirelli's behave + learn to use DRS AND beat his teammate without much actual testing time in the dry? Boy you must have huge expectations.

This was essentially Lotus giving Chandhok 60 laps of testing.

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 15:36

Its a BIG mistake to denigrate the quality of Indycar back in the 90s and equate it with modern day champcar. When Montoya and Bourdais were winning in Champcar it was a dying championship, not the same as back in the late 80s, early 90s when teams were still constructing their own chassis and top American and European drivers were still attracted to it rather than going NASCAR. Don't try to simplify things. Andretti and Mansell won in Indy when it was a whole different ballgame to what passes for it now.

Did any F1 drivers go to CART and struggle? What has been the norm in the last two decades was that drivers that were considered good in American racing came to F1 and struggled badly. Michael Andretti was good in CART, struggled in F1 for whatever reason. Alex Zanardi was average in F1, then went to America and won two championships, came back to F1 and was mediocre again.

Koz

28th July 2011, 15:43

Have you bothered to read the previous posts? "PIRELLI" tyres is the difference.

What you implied above is that the only reason DR was better is because of his testing mileage on the tyres, so I am asking you: is testing on the right tyres more important than to have done half the season last year?

Do you expect an average driver to come back after a year for a one-off appearance, learn how the Pirelli's behave + learn to use DRS AND beat his teammate without much actual testing time in the dry? Boy you must have huge expectations.
No, I expect a driver who drove half of last season, has more experience in F1 (as well as other series) to be faster than a driver who has only one race under his belt in the worst machine on the grid.

(Talking about KC and DR not HK)

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 16:00

What you implied above is that the only reason DR was better is because of his testing mileage on the tyres, so I am asking you: is testing on the right tyres more important than to have done half the season last year?

Do you know how much can change with new rubber? Braking points change depending on varying levels of grip, and the car's handling totally changes when tyres start to go off, you get to your apex differently. That's why teams and drivers do 100+ laps during testing to get used to these things. Mark Webber did hundreds of laps in winter testing, Friday practice and half a season and was still struggling with the new Pirellis. So, yeah, Ricciardo's extra testing with Red Bull and STR on Pirellis is at this point more valuable than Chandhok's last season on Bridgestones. Besides, KC had multiple spins at the German GP, so that is not a true indicator of what his real race pace is. Like I said before, this was essentially a Lotus test for KC.

No, I expect a driver who drove half of last season, has more experience in F1 (as well as other series) to be faster than a driver who has only one race under his belt in the worst machine on the grid.

(Talking about KC and DR not HK)

Yeah, but he was out of action far longer than DR. KC hasn't raced or gotten proper testing mileage since mid-year 2010. DR tested in the young drivers program for Red Bull in Abu Dhabi, racking up more laps on Pirellis in two days than Karun has gotten so far, even after the German GP. Then he did testing for STR during the winter, made several Friday practice appearances throughout this year. Karun was out for almost a year, and we all know what can happen to drivers after time off, see Michael Schumacher getting schooled by Barbie. So yes, at this point, surprisingly, Ricciardo has more mileage and is more accustomed to F1 than Karun.

Malbec

28th July 2011, 16:26

Did any F1 drivers go to CART and struggle? What has been the norm in the last two decades was that drivers that were considered good in American racing came to F1 and struggled badly. Michael Andretti was good in CART, struggled in F1 for whatever reason. Alex Zanardi was average in F1, then went to America and won two championships, came back to F1 and was mediocre again.

There are many reasons why American drivers have not done well recently in F1, which along with why Japanese drivers have not been successful is an entirely different and very large topic.

You talk about the last two decades but not many drivers came over from the US in that period. Jacques Villeneuve challenged for a championship in his first F1 season and won the second. JPM was competitive at Williams and McLaren until he decided to go back to the US. Bourdais was pretty good at STR and was no pushover for the likes of Vettel until he fell foul of Red Bull politics and was kicked out. Zanardi struggled, Michael Andretti who did everything to sabotage his F1 career failed too. Looking at those drivers how is that statistically different from, say, drivers who graduated from GP2 or F3 to F1?

Simplifying things into 'Indycar has been and always will be less competitive than F1 therefore winning Indy means nothing' is meaningless.

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 16:36

Simplifying things into 'Indycar has been and always will be less competitive than F1 therefore winning Indy means nothing' is meaningless.

I didn't imply that. It takes talent to win a world championship in any sport on this planet. It's just that we have never seen truly amazing talent come from Indycar or CART. Villenueve and Montoya both started in European championships and then went to America, and then came to F1. At the end of the day, what "appears" to me is that winning the CART championship was not more difficult than winning an F1 championship? Plus the technology in F1 in those days was far superior to what they had in CART, which was another reason for Michael Andretti's downfall as he never fully understood it, and could be the reason why Mansell did so well in his first year in CART and Indy 500, because he had a lot of experience in faster, more complex machines?

Garry Walker

28th July 2011, 21:33

Show me where in this thread have I said that Karun is a special talent?Where did I claim you said that?

All I said was it's a harder road to F1 for Southeast Asian drivers than European talent.Maybe, maybe not. If you are really talented in asia, you will shine because of less competition. In europe there are so many good drivers that even if you are talented, you can still be pushed aside and looked over.

And as you have proven here, how easily Alonso and Kimi got into F1. Sure, the obvious talent is there, but they also drove into F1 on good sponsorship money. Kimi with Finlandia and Red Bull, and Alonso with Spanish banks Mutua Madrilena and Santander and other European sponsorship which helps them get test drives or pay drives. Do you just take "facts" out of air and just post anything you can think of and try to sell it as truth? Neither of them got a place in F1 due to sponsorship, you have given false information again. In fact, Red Bull was AGAINST kimi being taken to Sauber, they wanted their own man, Bernoldi. But Sauber stood his ground. They both got the seats based on their immense talent and awesome testing showings and neither brought sponsporship to the team as far as I can remember.

I admit I was wrong about them having more single-seater experience.Sadly, not a rare occurence.

Agreed. I never said he showed anything mercurial. But his GP2 career and other formulas has been equal to or more impressive than guys like Kobayashi, Buemi, Liuzzi, Ricciardo, and Sutil. So, if they have gotten to F1, there's no reason why I don't see he should be denied a chance, as long as they pay for it.Well, I wouldnt say his pre-f1 career is as impressive as any of those guys.
Liuzzi was one of the best go-karting drivers in world and was thought to be an immense talent.
Sutil was far more impressive, Kobayashi didnt have a great pre-f1 career, but he had one time to show his talent and he did it at once. Ricciardo has a more impressive CV too, but I will point out that I dont think he deserves a place in F1 as of yet, no way.

I don't think such a small detail would be in somebody's archives over the internet, and I can't be bothered to waste time searching for it, so you'd just have to take my word for it that I read it in a magazine years ago. But if you use some logic, how does Williams give a test to a guy who was pretty much beaten by an also ran teammate at Brabham, and qualified for a total of two races in 1991? Winky winky. More false information. Hill only started in F1 in 1992, not in 1991. Yes, he qualified for two races, but for how many races did his teammate qualify?
What magazine? You have posted so many lies in this thread that it is safe to say absolutely no one will take your word for it, you simply have ran out of credit.

Then he is simply not a great driver. Not an average driver, but not a great driver either.So only Senna and Schumacher are great drivers?
But it is good you have backed down from your central argument in this debate, which was that Mansell was an average driver.

Yes, keep making more assumptions and claim to read driver's minds. Did Prost and Senna tell you that personally? Makes you look like a bigger idiot than you show on this forum, which is a hugely difficult task because the number one idiot status cannot be equaled. So you claim Mansell was not taken seriously by either Senna or Prost. You are so stupid it is embarrassing for this whole forum to have you post such manure.

True that the mechanical failures prevented us from seeing what would have really happened, but at the end of the day coulda, woulda, shouldas can change the perception of any driver's career. Glad you admitted that that season was not representative of their overall level and that perception can be misleading.

More idiotic assumptions and amazing driver mind readings follow. You assume I didn't watch that season? You also know that Andretti didn't take F1 seriously enough, because he's your little love puppy and confided in you. He was BUTCHERED by Senna during his year at Mclaren, which tells a lot about his driving talent. His CART championship also came driving one of the best cars for the best teams, same car/team in which Mansell drove to win his championship. Some of Mansell's other career highs are more impressive, this one isn't, so just shut it.
1) It is funny when someone who is not even housebroken tells you to shut it :D
2) I see another forum member has already educated you on Andretti and I dont need to repeat his words. You were obviously wrong again.

Again, knob goblin, if you go back and read my post again, I said that Mansell's career stats are impressive, but he spent the majority of his career at Williams, one of the best cars, and all he has is one championship to show for it, where he needed a lot of things to go wrong with his rivals. Williams would have won that year's championship with or without Mansell, their car was THAT good. As I said, he was close to winning three other titles and missed out on those by a very little margin. Nothing to be ashamed of, especially when considering the kind of seasons Prost and Senna had to drive against him to beat him.

Judging by your asinine posts and senile comments, 92, 93? Also, it's interesting how you don't like the word "noob", but yet use LOL everywhere like five year old girl high on prozac overdose. LOL.

As for your questions:

1) Show me a driver who has won most of his races in non-top 3 cars?

What does this question have to do with anything? Face it, Mansell drove for top teams all his life, and has one championship to show for it which was achieved in 1992 in probably one of the most dominant cars ever. There are no drivers who achieved most success in slow cars, and that's why I said that in modern F1, car performance is a huge part of success. While some drivers win championships in equal cars, some of them need only the absolute best to pull it off, ex. Mansell and Hill.Against drivers like Senna and Schumacher, who are all time bests, yes, both of them needed a car advantage to beat those guys. But both showed on multiple occasions (especially Mansell) that even with equal cars, they could easily take fight to those guys.

2) Did you by any chance watch 1986 or 1991?

Didn't watch 86, but I have watched every season since 1987.I beg your pardon, I should have been more precise with the way I worded my question. This is like asking someone if they read War and Peace by Tolstoy, having them say yes with a dumb look and then asking that person if he understood any of that book, whereby the answer would be a clear no.
So I will re-word my question - did you understand anything that happened in those seasons?

Garry Walker

28th July 2011, 21:45

Not far though. Only because we are limited by your low intelligence.

That's a stupid list. Schumacher doesn't belong in the best of the best. Here is my more accurate list.

Greatest: Clark, Fangio, Senna, Prost.
Great drivers: Stewart, Lauda, Piquet, Fittipaldi, Brabham, Moss, Hakkinen, Schumacher, Raikkonen.
Good drivers: Mansell, Hill, Hunt, Scheckter, Rindt, Andretti
Cheating scumbags: Michael Schumacher (Also had one of the best and dominant cars in the Ferrari era, and is now getting exposed by Rosberg)
LOL
What, you think you can wind me up with that? I wasn`t expecting much from you, but this is a sadder attempt at baiting than I imagined you were capable of :D .
Of course, your list is worthy of being printed out and used as toilet paper.

Wrong. Hakkinen didn't have the absolute best and reliable car in 1999. The Ferrari in 1999 was a good car and didn't fail as much as the Mclaren. 5 retirements for Mika compared to Irvine's one. Hakkinen probably would have won 2000 as well if the Mclaren was more reliable and didn't fail at Indianapolis.
In 1999, out of those 5 retirements, how many were due to Mika crashing out? You have failed once again. McLaren was the best and fastest car of that year in MH`s hands and MH had good enough reliability. The only one who deserved the title that year was probably HHF, the rest kept making mistakes all the time. One of the worst titles in recent history.
In 2000, even if he hadnt retired at Indianapolis, he still wouldnt have taken the title. The gap in the end was 19 points.

Kimi won the 2007 title when the Ferrari wasn't the absolute fastest car. Agreed, although I would add that even when speedwise McLaren had only a very very slight advantage, the reliability played a part here. But we have to remember that he was not driving against Senna or Schumacher that year.

Hamilton won in 2008 again in a car pretty much equal with the Ferrari.Hamilton did not have a good year in 2008 at all, he made several mistakes and was at times completely lost. Not a good season by him, not as good as 2007 anyway. Ferrari kept giving him the chance to win the title by making one mistake after another.

I just don't see Mansell or Hill winning in these scenarios. In 1999 and 2008, I see no reason why they wouldnt have been capable of winning in the McLaren, Mansell especially. The winning dirver in those seasons did not have a great campaign at all.

Garry Walker

28th July 2011, 21:52

Then that could probably be the same thing for Chandhok too. Probably his paddock reputation is what got him into F1. About Hill, what I read in a magazine was that his sponsors sweetened the deal with Williams while Hill was in the testing role. Of course he impressed Frank with his times in testing too, and landed the seat. But a guy who qualified two times in 1992 and goes straight to the championship winning Williams' second seat is a bit weird, isn't it?

Not too bad, but probably, and this is only my humble opinion, Prost or Senna would have won more championships for Williams, not just 1992.

I'm not so sure how well Andretti really would have done. While I agree that his choice to commute across continents really hurt his chances, he probably wasn't that talented anyway. And let's be honest, Senna would have wiped the floor with him anyway. The only two drivers who came from American racing and did well in F1 were his dad Mario, and JP Montoya.

I guess you don`t know of either Gilles and Jacques Villeneuve?

steveaki13

28th July 2011, 22:37

That has to be the longest post ever, which it basically is, one long post rather than 3.

Amazing

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 22:43

Where did I claim you said that?

You kept comparing Chandhok to Hill and Mansell, and then Sato, Kimi and Alonso. Anyway, all the drivers on that list are better than Schumacher.

Maybe, maybe not. If you are really talented in asia, you will shine because of less competition. In europe there are so many good drivers that even if you are talented, you can still be pushed aside and looked over.

How can you shine in a championship that is not as well recognized as European racing championships by F1 teams and scouts? You can win all Asian championships you want, but unless you win a European championship OR have a solid sponsorship or manufacturer backing like Honda for Sato and Toyota for Kobayashi, you're not getting anywhere in F1. Your logic is as dumb as that hamster peddling the motor in your brain.

Do you just take "facts" out of air and just post anything you can think of and try to sell it as truth? Neither of them got a place in F1 due to sponsorship, you have given false information again. In fact, Red Bull was AGAINST kimi being taken to Sauber, they wanted their own man, Bernoldi. But Sauber stood his ground. They both got the seats based on their immense talent and awesome testing showings and neither brought sponsporship to the team as far as I can remember.

Of course there was talent involved, but from what I remember, after Sauber chose Kimi over Bernoldi, Red Bull didn't withdraw their sponsorship, and they were sponsoring Kimi for a long time after that, and backed him in WRC as well, and were about to put him in Webber's seat in the Red Bull F1 team too. They are still sponsoring his WRC aspirations. Finlandia brought solid sponsorship to Mclaren as well. Alonso's link with Spanish banks also is well documented. Anyway, all this is rubbish talk. Everybody knows Kimi and Alonso are mega talented, and comparing them to Chandhok is stupid. But that also doesn't mean that they just drove into F1 with zero sponsorship.

More false information. Hill only started in F1 in 1992, not in 1991. Yes, he qualified for two races, but for how many races did his teammate qualify?
What magazine? You have posted so many lies in this thread that it is safe to say absolutely no one will take your word for it, you simply have ran out of credit.

That 1991 was a typo, I meant 1992. His teammate, some also-ran has-been also qualified for two races and finished higher than Damon Hill. Why wasn't he given a test with Williams? It was only his second year in F1. And the article was on Damon in F1 Racing I believe, about 7-8 years ago. Do you remember each and everything you read years ago? GTFO!

So only Senna and Schumacher are great drivers?

No, only Senna. Schumacher is a cheating scumbag who was never really good. He always needed to cheat to get anywhere, and won the majority of his championships and races when Ferrari was the absolute best car on the grid. Best ever my ass. Most successful, yes, but always in the right car at the right time. Dick Dastardly is now being exposed by Barbie really badly.

But it is good you have backed down from your central argument in this debate, which was that Mansell was an average driver.

He's not a great driver either. Any half decent driver would have won the title in that 1992 Williams, even Schumacher.

So you claim Mansell was not taken seriously by either Senna or Prost. You are so stupid it is embarrassing for this whole forum to have you post such manure.

Wow, this crap is so repetitive, it's getting boring. Garry Walker asks a question, and then follows it up with a fifth-grader insult. You probably scared your imaginary friend away with this, but it doesn't work in the real world.

I see another forum member has already educated you on Andretti and I dont need to repeat his words. You were obviously wrong again.

Didn't prove anything. Oh, and nice way to chicken out, followed by another repetitive, boring statement again. I just Googled your name and it showed me this: http://www.bestchickenhouseplans.info/images/chicken.jpg

As I said, he was close to winning three other titles and missed out on those by a very little margin. Nothing to be ashamed of, especially when considering the kind of seasons Prost and Senna had to drive against him to beat him.

And yet you rated him higher than Kimi and Mika, who ALSO could have won three championships. Kimi in 2003 against your "God" and 2005 against eyebrows, and Mika in 2000 against the cheater extraordinaire. FIA helped Ferrari in 2003, Mclaren's amazing reliability helped Alonso in 2005, and Ferrari helped themselves in 2000 by having a higher development rate than Mclaren, which ultimately was the deciding factor. So, then Kimi and Mika are better drivers than Mansell? Yes, we agree? Good, now you can get back to stargazing out of your basement air vent.

I beg your pardon, I should have been more precise with the way I worded my question. This is like asking someone if they read War and Peace by Tolstoy, having them say yes with a dumb look and then asking that person if he understood any of that book, whereby the answer would be a clear no.
So I will re-word my question - did you understand anything that happened in those seasons?

Your posts are becoming boring by the second, Garry. Do something new and don't ask childish, bull$hit questions.

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 23:13

LOL
What, you think you can wind me up with that? I wasn`t expecting much from you, but this is a sadder attempt at baiting than I imagined you were capable of :D .
Of course, your list is worthy of being printed out and used as toilet paper.

What? Tough time handling the truth? That wasn't a bait, nobody told you the straight truth before, that's why you still think Schumacher is the best, and probably why you scream every night next to his poster on your wall.

In 1999, out of those 5 retirements, how many were due to Mika crashing out? You have failed once again. McLaren was the best and fastest car of that year in MH`s hands and MH had good enough reliability. The only one who deserved the title that year was probably HHF, the rest kept making mistakes all the time. One of the worst titles in recent history.

Accidents were two, mechanical retirements were three, so yes, the 1998 Mclaren was a fast but unreliable car, and that helped Irvine close it up. Don't try to hide the facts with your biased stupidity.

In 2000, even if he hadnt retired at Indianapolis, he still wouldnt have taken the title. The gap in the end was 19 points.

As far as I can remember, Mika was closing in on Michael @ 1 second a lap at Indianapolis, fresh from the best overtaking move in F1 history at Spa 2000. That engine failure derailed the train and demotivated Mika, something which he talked about later. Besides that, Ferrari accelerated development mid-year and the car was getting better. Also, Bridgestone brought compounds to Monza that favored Ferrari, which angered a lot of other teams, especially title rivals Mclaren. One of the reasons why majority of the teams jumped ship to Michelin when they entered the sport. Ferrari also introduced a new engine Monza onwards.

Agreed, although I would add that even when speedwise McLaren had only a very very slight advantage, the reliability played a part here. But we have to remember that he was not driving against Senna or Schumacher that year.

Alonso is no slouch, I'd say a much better driver than Schumacher, beat him in 2006. Also, Hamilton is a very prolific driver himself. So, winning the title against Alonso and Lewis is a bigger achievement than winning it against Michael.

In 1999 and 2008, I see no reason why they wouldnt have been capable of winning in the McLaren, Mansell especially. The winning dirver in those seasons did not have a great campaign at all.

Then why didn't Hill win in 1994, 1995 or Mansell in the years before 1992? I think if you really put your brain into action, I know very difficult but still try, you would figure out that the answer is fairly simple really. They didn't have the absolute best car on the grid. Williams would have won the 1992 and 1996 championships with or without Mansell and Hill, simply because their teammates Patrese and Villenueve were second in the championship in the same car.

Now, let's look at 1999 and 2008. In 1999, Mika was first, Coulthard was fourth. I would say DC is a better driver than Patrese at least? 2008, Lewis was first, Heikki was 7th. They did not have the absolute best car or the most reliable car, still managed to win the championship, something Hill and Mansell have never achieved.

CaptainRaiden

28th July 2011, 23:17

I guess you don`t know of either Gilles and Jacques Villeneuve?

Gilles made his way through the Canadian circuit. I didn't bother to check, but I don't think he went through Indycar. Jacques went through Europe first, Japan second, Indycar third, and then into F1, and apart from winning the championship in the best car on the grid again, fizzled out for the rest of his career. While Gilles was a God, I don't think you can call Jacques necessarily a very good driver.

Hawkmoon

28th July 2011, 23:43

Yeah, if you would have read those 'stupidly long posts', you would have seen that nobody is discussing Chandhok's quality.

I'm sorry. I thought a thread titled "Chandhok replaces Trulli" might actually have something to do with Chandhok.

Another Aussie hyping up Ricciardo, ooh, what a surprise. You forgot to mention one key detail. Ricciardo did winter testing for Red Bull, then Torro Rosso, then ran in Friday practice a couple of times this year before getting into the HRT and getting blitzed by Liuzzi. While Nurburgring Friday practice was the first time Chandhok has driven a 2011 car on Pirelli tyres. Considering this, his qualy performance was pretty good. But as somebody else said in this thread, it was more Heikki messing up his qualy than Chandhok doing good.

Chandhok never did a race distance on Pirelli tyres, didn't have a clue how they behave after being worn down, and hence the mediocre performance mid-race onwards plus he ran out of talent, which is not much already. ;)

Why do you assume that because I'm Australian I automatically, not to mention blindly, support Ricciardo? If you think along those lines fine. I don't. I have no support for either Ricciardo or Webber. I support Ferrari and nobody else.

My point was not that Chandhok was lapped by Ricciardo. It was that he was lapped by a HRT. That can only be described as a rubbish performance as the Lotus is a significantly better car than the HRT. Chandhok has never shown anything when measured against his teammates, let alone the rest of the grid. Lotus took a step back when they replaced Trulli and if you want to make excuses for Chandhok so be it.

AndyL

29th July 2011, 12:58

That has to be the longest post ever, which it basically is, one long post rather than 3.

Amazing

Well that record didn't last long, did it.

Wow, this crap is so repetitive, it's getting boring

An excellent summary of the entire last 3 pages of the thread. :(

BDunnell

29th July 2011, 13:15

An excellent summary of the entire last 3 pages of the thread. :(

Yes, it has indeed been pure joy, including some of my favourite contributors.

Dave B

29th July 2011, 14:17

Chandhock has been telling 5Live that he wasn't using his own seat in Gemany, and although he was keen not to use that as an excuse it surely must have been a contributing factor.

CaptainRaiden

29th July 2011, 16:56

I'm sorry. I thought a thread titled "Chandhok replaces Trulli" might actually have something to do with Chandhok.

Haven't you learned anything from the F1 forum here? ;)

My point was not that Chandhok was lapped by Ricciardo. It was that he was lapped by a HRT. That can only be described as a rubbish performance as the Lotus is a significantly better car than the HRT. Chandhok has never shown anything when measured against his teammates, let alone the rest of the grid. Lotus took a step back when they replaced Trulli and if you want to make excuses for Chandhok so be it.

I'm not interested in typing up a response to that all over again. You'll find most of the answers to your questions throughout this thread.

Mia 01

30th July 2011, 10:59

He didn´t do himself any favours.

In a F1 car, not good enough.

Garry Walker

10th August 2011, 21:05

Yes, it has indeed been pure joy, including some of my favourite contributors. I love you too
PS: dont get any ideas!

You kept comparing Chandhok to Hill and Mansell, and then Sato, Kimi and Alonso. Anyway, all the drivers on that list are better than Schumacher.LOL

How can you shine in a championship that is not as well recognized as European racing championships by F1 teams and scouts? You can win all Asian championships you want, but unless you win a European championship OR have a solid sponsorship or manufacturer backing like Honda for Sato and Toyota for Kobayashi, you're not getting anywhere in F1. Your logic is as dumb as that hamster peddling the motor in your brain.Look mr.yetToBeHousebroken, you use the asian series as a stepping stone. You impress there and dominate, you get noticed by european series. Simple.

Of course there was talent involved, but from what I remember, after Sauber chose Kimi over Bernoldi, Red Bull didn't withdraw their sponsorship, and they were sponsoring Kimi for a long time after that, and backed him in WRC as well, and were about to put him in Webber's seat in the Red Bull F1 team too. They are still sponsoring his WRC aspirations. Finlandia brought solid sponsorship to Mclaren as well. Alonso's link with Spanish banks also is well documented. Anyway, all this is rubbish talk. Everybody knows Kimi and Alonso are mega talented, and comparing them to Chandhok is stupid. But that also doesn't mean that they just drove into F1 with zero sponsorship.
Red Bull did not sponsor Kimi before Kimi joined WRC.
Finlandia was not Kimi`s personal sponsor, didnt they sponsor McLaren even before Kimi was even in F1.
Alonso was also not sponsored by Spanish banks when he joined F1.
So you are wrong, wrong again. They both made it to F1 without any serious sponsorship.

That 1991 was a typo, I meant 1992. His teammate, some also-ran has-been also qualified for two races and finished higher than Damon Hill. Why wasn't he given a test with Williams? It was only his second year in F1. And the article was on Damon in F1 Racing I believe, about 7-8 years ago. Do you remember each and everything you read years ago? GTFO! So basically, you claimed BS, you have no proof. What a surprise.

No, only Senna. Schumacher is a cheating scumbag who was never really good. He always needed to cheat to get anywhere, and won the majority of his championships and races when Ferrari was the absolute best car on the grid. Best ever my ass. Most successful, yes, but always in the right car at the right time. Dick Dastardly is now being exposed by Barbie really badly.LOL. I guess Senna kept winning in the worst cars of the grid LOL.

He's not a great driver either. Any half decent driver would have won the title in that 1992 Williams, even Schumacher.LOL

Wow, this crap is so repetitive, it's getting boring. Garry Walker asks a question, and then follows it up with a fifth-grader insult. You probably scared your imaginary friend away with this, but it doesn't work in the real world. Of course, if we met in real world, you would ****ty your pants quicker than I could say "hello".

Didn't prove anything. Oh, and nice way to chicken out, followed by another repetitive, boring statement again. I just Googled your name and it showed me this: http://www.bestchickenhouseplans.info/images/chicken.jpg My own stalker, how great!
Thankfully, being a kind person, I have selected a T-shirt that really suits you as much as possible. http://rlv.zcache.com/cuckold_tshirt-p235318245106669027trlf_400.jpg

And yet you rated him higher than Kimi and Mika, who ALSO could have won three championships. Kimi in 2003 against your "God" and 2005 against eyebrows, and Mika in 2000 against the cheater extraordinaire. FIA helped Ferrari in 2003, Mclaren's amazing reliability helped Alonso in 2005, and Ferrari helped themselves in 2000 by having a higher development rate than Mclaren, which ultimately was the deciding factor. So, then Kimi and Mika are better drivers than Mansell? Yes, we agree? Good, now you can get back to stargazing out of your basement air vent.

Mansell could have won 4 titles, Kimi and MH could have won 3 titles. Mansell better, simple :D

What? Tough time handling the truth? That wasn't a bait, nobody told you the straight truth before, that's why you still think Schumacher is the best, and probably why you scream every night next to his poster on your wall.Ramblings of a man that would make Ted Kaczynski look well in the head.

Accidents were two, mechanical retirements were three, so yes, the 1998 Mclaren was a fast but unreliable car, and that helped Irvine close it up. Don't try to hide the facts with your biased stupidity.3 retirements due to car problems was not unheard of these days and was in fact pretty okay. So for MH it was okay, the speed advantage he had over Ferrari means he should have taken the title far sooner, especially against someone like Irvine. Very lucky and unimpressive title.

As far as I can remember, Mika was closing in on Michael @ 1 second a lap at Indianapolis, fresh from the best overtaking move in F1 history at Spa 2000. That engine failure derailed the train and demotivated Mika, something which he talked about later. Besides that, Ferrari accelerated development mid-year and the car was getting better. Also, Bridgestone brought compounds to Monza that favored Ferrari, which angered a lot of other teams, especially title rivals Mclaren. One of the reasons why majority of the teams jumped ship to Michelin when they entered the sport. Ferrari also introduced a new engine Monza onwards.

1) Why does it matter that Mika was closing on MS at Indy, even if he had won, he still wouldnt have taken the title, dumbo
2) I might be wrong here, but didnt Newey later say that he wanted the exact same compound for Monza that was eventually brought?
3) Excuses, excuses, excuses. McLaren kept bringing updates to all the races in 2000 and had far better tyre useage in races. Schumacher was simply a much better driver than Mika.

Then why didn't Hill win in 1994, 1995 or Mansell in the years before 1992? I think if you really put your brain into action, I know very difficult but still try, you would figure out that the answer is fairly simple really. They didn't have the absolute best car on the grid. Williams would have won the 1992 and 1996 championships with or without Mansell and Hill, simply because their teammates Patrese and Villenueve were second in the championship in the same car. They didnt because Senna and Schumacher kept driving at unbelieveably high levels and in equal or near equal cars they were not able to beat those two.
You are really slow in the mind, aren`t you?

Now, let's look at 1999 and 2008. In 1999, Mika was first, Coulthard was fourth. I would say DC is a better driver than Patrese at least? 2008, Lewis was first, Heikki was 7th. They did not have the absolute best car or the most reliable car, still managed to win the championship, something Hill and Mansell have never achieved.DC was 4th only because his car failed in 6!! races. In comparison, MH had far better reliability and overall the best car by far. His main rival was Eddie Irvine, who basically was a nobody, so it is an embarrassment that it took so long for MH to win the title that year. FAR less impressive than Mansell in 1992 or Hill in 1996.
Heikki Kovalainen being a failure does not lessen the value of the car, it was a great car, driven by one great driver and one idiot.

Mia 01

10th August 2011, 22:30

Out of the current grid, exept Kimi, Jarnó is one of the best, these youngsters even koba is thrash.

CaptainRaiden

10th August 2011, 23:54

Look mr.yetToBeHousebroken, you use the asian series as a stepping stone. You impress there and dominate, you get noticed by european series. Simple.

He won and dominated two Asian championships, got noticed and placed third in British Formula 3, and his GP2 resume is more impressive than Mr. Kobayashi's. What else?

Red Bull did not sponsor Kimi before Kimi joined WRC.
Finlandia was not Kimi`s personal sponsor, didnt they sponsor McLaren even before Kimi was even in F1.
Alonso was also not sponsored by Spanish banks when he joined F1.
So you are wrong, wrong again. They both made it to F1 without any serious sponsorship.

Are you a 100% sure about that?

LOL. I guess Senna kept winning in the worst cars of the grid LOL.

Well, he almost won in a Toleman at Monaco, and got another two podiums in that crap car. Can your boy Nige or the lucky German claim such badassedness?

Of course, if we met in real world, you would ****ty your pants quicker than I could say "hello".

How's that purple weed working out for ya?

Thankfully, being a kind person, I have selected a T-shirt that really suits you as much as possible. http://rlv.zcache.com/cuckold_tshirt-p235318245106669027trlf_400.jpg

Then why are you wearing it?

3 retirements due to car problems was not unheard of these days and was in fact pretty okay. So for MH it was okay, the speed advantage he had over Ferrari means he should have taken the title far sooner, especially against someone like Irvine. Very lucky and unimpressive title.

You realize that by claiming Irvine was a nobody, you're making the already lacklustre Schumacher look even worse? No wonder that he's getting faceplanked by Barbie so badly for the last two years. Jesus, and some of you claimed he could have won in a Minardi. LMAO!

1) Why does it matter that Mika was closing on MS at Indy, even if he had won, he still wouldnt have taken the title, dumbo

Oh my, what a plonker. Mika was leading Michael by 2 points before they got to Indy, this was after the mega ownage around Zonta at Spa where Mika made Michael his biatch at Les Combes. If he would have won at Indy, which he would have, the lead would have been 6 points. And he most probably would have pushed more at Suzuka, when the deficit wouldn't have been 8 points, as it was after Indy because of Mclaren's failure. Mika went into the last two races knowing that only a mechanical failure or a mistake from Michael would win him the title, not a very motivating factor for any driver fighting for the championship.

2) I might be wrong here, but didnt Newey later say that he wanted the exact same compound for Monza that was eventually brought?

I don't remember what Newey said, but what I do remember is that there was protest by other teams at Monza, and Bridgestone's loyalty to Ferrari only strengthened more in 2001, and hence the migration towards Michelin by all but two teams in the coming years.

3) Excuses, excuses, excuses. McLaren kept bringing updates to all the races in 2000 and had far better tyre useage in races. Schumacher was simply a much better driver than Mika.

What a big surprise coming from a Schumacher nuthugger. I wonder how he gets his pants on in the morning with you clinging to his nuts.

DC was 4th only because his car failed in 6!! races. In comparison, MH had far better reliability and overall the best car by far. His main rival was Eddie Irvine, who basically was a nobody, so it is an embarrassment that it took so long for MH to win the title that year. FAR less impressive than Mansell in 1992 or Hill in 1996.
Heikki Kovalainen being a failure does not lessen the value of the car, it was a great car, driven by one great driver and one idiot.

Mika was consistently faster than DC, and outqualified DC pretty convincingly to cement his status as the better and number one driver in the team. Again, by claiming Irvine was a nobody, you're taking away from your God's credibility. Poor nuthugging. Besides, the 1998 Ferrari was not a bad car, and in some races was almost as good as the Mclaren, sometimes better, evidenced by the "nobody" Irvine's several podiums. So, the Mclaren was not the absolute fastest car in 1998. Without Mika, they wouldn't have won the 1998 championship, neither 1999, and almost 2000. Whereas in 1992, the road was crystal clear for Mansell, because that Williams was the absolute fastest car, and almost a generation ahead of other cars. Other teams still didn't get their active suspension dialed out even in 1993, and Prost just strolled into the car out of retirement after a year's layoff and won the title. Hell, how do you explain Patrese beating your God Chewbacca and Senna in 1992?