| Readers' Comments | |
|
| |
| Updated: 04 June 1998 | Monaco Issue |
|
Dear Atlas,
Well first it was slowing down the cars, then making passing a greater likelihood, then it was away with the X-wings, and now, it's the teams forcing a team to have a certain name. Why can't a company call itself what it wants to provided they are not using someone else's name? BAR has to remain Tyrrell. Why? It is silly. The teams are being silly. Why didn't they force Alain Prost to keep Guy Ligier's name on the cars? Obviously because they felt the Prost name was more important to the sport. Well, granted his four world championships the teams might be right. But if Ken Tyrrell wanted out, and he must have been ready to go soon anyway, buy out or retirement, then that's that. What would they have done had BAR just started fresh? Ban them? If they think this will help fans stay interested they can think again. Tyrrell has been an also-ran for over a decade... when was their last win? Detroit 1983? Why not let BAR rename the team. The Tyrrell name might be associated to half the world's F1 fans with Jackie Stewart and championships, but for the younger half--people like me who only started following F1 long after Tyrrell was competitive--the name means little by way of sentiment. If the rule changes in F1 were not already absurd enough, this name game has taken it to a new level.
Bob Pearson
F1 is a funny thing. If you reed all the F1 magazines, you consistently have interviews with people like Frank Williams, Adrian Newey or Ron Dennis saying that every time there are rule changes the big teams benefit the most and it takes a couple of years for the smaller teams to catch-up. This year's change have only made the cars marginally slower and have made passing almost impossible. The result is a season that really sucks! My question is why do Mr. Mosely and Mr. Ecclestone not listen do these experts? Are they really trying to screw up F1 on purpose? The result is that this year's season of Champcars is much more exiting (I am not an Indycar fan). If these two gentlemen want to make F1 the #1 world sport they need to wake-up. Regards,
Eric G.
P.S. I still do not see how Speedvision's limited accessibility will help promote F1 in the United States? Dear Atlas: I see my Frentzen comments caused some controversy. I admit they were a bit unlikely, but I think this Cecil bloke got it right when he points out the true culprits, the FIA. Never in all my life have I come across such a ridiculous band of headless chickens. What the hell are they doing? Where has Mosely got his head buried? What is this crazy comparison with football/soccer? Ok, you might only see a handfull of goals in the average match but, on the other hand sir Mosely, the players do ocassionaly pass each other. Personaly, I am all for a continuation of the current refueling and rubber stops. I'll admit I find the strategys entertaining. However, I can see Alain Prost's point when he says they do exaggerate the differences between cars as they run significant portions of the race in a near optimum race set up, ie. low fuel and fresh rubber. If, as seems the case, we are destined for a rethinking (or rather repackaging) of the championship, let's see even more emphasis on strategies. How about multiple compounds available during race? This would allow teams to change strategy as conditions suited and probably aid the passing situation as teams fail to optimise their strategys . Also , can we please have T-car testing in practice debanned. Who came up with this rule; I'd love to know... why? I'd like to see a return to a more constructor orientated championship. Lately engine deals have sealed the fate of F1 champions. Honda : McLaren , Renault : Williams / Benneton , Merc : McLaren. We also have the sinister development of exclusivity contracts. One only has to look at last weeks headlines concerning Ecclestone and Williams and their 'lil tif over the return of Flavio who has unsurped Frank's Meccachrome contract. This is great. Not only cause I like to see Williams squirm and rant, but because I believe that the more teams a single dealer supplies the closer the racing. Lets see some exotic engine rules: Minimum of two teams per supplier, or perhaps proliferation clauses which deny a supplier the right to deny second teams the top spec engine as we see with Stewards Cosworth deal. Just a thought.
Douglas Sherman
Steve Pasion
I know my opinions on 99 drivers and a dollar will only buy me a Coca-Cola, but here I go anyway. Master of the Obvious: Mika Hakkinen, Giancarlo Fisichella and Eddie Irvine will all be with their same teams next year. They, however, are the only three drivers who have guaranteed seats right now. The paramount issue is of course the second McLaren seat. David Coulthard is absolutely good enough to be there. His problem is he's only good enough to be there. McLaren could easily pay 1/6 the price of Schumacher and retain Coulthard. I am one who doesn't not believe Michael will drive for McLaren in 99. One, as aforementioned, Coulthard is good enough. He can, on occasion out qualify and out race Hakkinen. Two, McLaren as Damon Hill found out, is not going to pay drivers huge sums of money. Would Schumacher take a salary cut to drive the McLaren? Probably but how much of a cut are we talking about. Three, if Mika Hakkinen is Ron Dennis' favorite son so to speak, would Ron really bring in a driver who would consistently take his favorite son behind the wood shed and give him a beating. Mika may very well be the second best driver in Formula One. Senna and Prost however, taught Ron Dennis that it is a mistake to have the two best drivers on one team. Here's where I start getting crazy. Coulthard needs two more wins to keep his seat that's all. If he doesn't either Wurz, Frentzen or Schumacher move in, in that order of likelihood. If Schumacher does bolt out of Ferrari his likely replacements are Wurz, Zanardi (yes from CART) or Trulli. Wurz is obviously the hottest commodity available. I just think Fisichella's contact with Benetton is too binding for him to be anywhere but Benetton in 99. There is a great possibility the both Williams drivers are out. Villeneuve certainly is going to BAR. Frentzen needs a win to keep his seat, which I don't think he's getting.
Now I'm going ballistic: Alesi, Rosset, Diniz, Nakano will all be out of F1 next year.
Steve Pasion
Dear Atlas F1, With regards to Douglas' comments regarding Frentzen "costing" Michael Schumacher the WC last season, I'm sorry but I diagree. What cost Michael the WC was the FIA's inability to govern the sport with any consistancy. The FIA handed Jacques Villeneuve a 1 race ban at Jerez for excessive speed under a yellow, while he was under a suspended ban for repeated offenses during the year. A bit harsh, perhaps, but perfectly within the rules. Jacques appeals, of course, and starts the GP with the stated intention of disrupting MS's GP. Now, here's what gets me: he has a poor race, finishes 5th and says "I guess I'll withdraw the appeal" and loses 2 points, and is allowed to compete at Jerez . That should not have been allowed to happen. Oh, sure, it made a little more intrest to the final GP and JV DID lose 2 points, but that's like accepting a punishment before entering a plea. JV got to participate in every GP, despite getting a ban for repeated offences. That is wrong. JV better give a big assist in the '97 WC to the FIA, cause in my opinion he couldn't have done it without them.
Cecil King
Atlas, My friends and I have been discussing it and this is what we think will happen at the end of the season: Schumacher and Ferrari will end in tears and Michael will go to McLaren. DC will go to the new BAR team. Villeneuve will go back to CART. One of the Benetton drivers will go to Ferrari. Montoya will be up-graded to driver status at Williams.
Guy Ellis
Guy: Care to do a follow up when the season is over? Best regards,
Paul Kaizar
This is written as a reply to previous e-mail from e.odaci@student.utwente.nl in the Spanish Comments section. A: I agree Irvine deserves better than to be constantly dismissed by Ferrari in deference to Schumacher. On the other hand, when taking the tactical view, it is clearly the better choice if not the honourable. What you have to grasp is F1 is not a sport to insiders, it's a buisness and like any buisness you have to be ruthless. It is also common knowledge that wilst Irvine is a great starter and not bad in the thick of it, he cannot keep with Schumacher for more than 3 - 4 laps on an open track. Whilst he has made significant improvements on the gap between them this year (down form 0.5 seconds / lap to about 0.3) this is still a huge speed differential. B. Argentina incident: If you were paying attention you would have noticed that David ran wide at that same corner the previous lap. Schumacher you will have noted was significantly faster anyway as he demonstrated in his dispatching of the championship leader Hakkinen and subsequent destruction of the gap. Argentina is a non pass circuit, all drivers (with the exception of Irvine) were openly critical of it. Any passing manouvre was going to be hairy at best. Schumacher tucked in behind the superior machine, pressured Coultard into making a by now charachteristic mistake (dont remember him going off on the warm up lap in Imola in '96 or perhaps a certain clash with a pit wall that same year?). Schumacher carried his momentum through pulled alongside Coultard with two wheels on the grass and had David turn in on him. All this is patently obvious from the arial camera. Whilst the media raved about the brutal tactics of the german and cursed him saying there was no room, let's remember, Coultard himself drove off the line trying to outbrake Schumy. When Mansell did this he was a hero. Dual standards? I'm willing to give Coultard the benifit of the doubt and say he didn't see Schumacher considering the visibility afforded to an f1 driver but that was unquestionably a defensive line and a slow one at that. A more relevant question would be why do drivers such as Hill and Frenzen (who for my money lost Schumi the championship last year by braking and allowing shumy to overtake under yellow when all the evidence including in car footage suggests the German was too tightly tucked in behind Frentzen's rear wing to see any flags and would have risked collission had he not gone around the decelerating Williams) are consistently allowed to spoil hot laps and ignore blue flags in a suspiciously anti Schumacher style.
Douglas Sherman
I'm well aware of fan pride, but hey, this is so unfair! After all this years waiting for Ferrari to become competitive again. After spending the last couple of years developing a healthy hate for Frank Williams and his endeavours, voicing out loud "sissy" every time I heard of Villeneuve and having fun (lots of it) with Hill's pathetic struggle, I am finally gratified with Ferrari's absolute superiority over Williams. We should win the championship easily, right ? Well, no, just when we were all set to go and grab both championships, there had to come McLaren/Mercedes to spoil it all. Oh God, it's so unfair! You would think that a British team would never consider anything German. Damn globalization! They are even selling Rolls Royce to people so low they are now known as "DaimlerChrysler". Aarrgghh! I'll just have to sell my Jaguar and get a Fiat! I know I only make sense if you picture me yelling in defeat after each race, but I think each and every one of Ferrari's fan have felt similar pains. It's unreasonable, but it hurts oh so much...
Furio Filoseta
The FIA is becoming worse and worse. First they introduce these stupid rules of grooved tyres and narrower cars to supposedly increase overtaking, which HAS MORE THAN FAILED! And then they go and fine a driver (Fisichella) for even attempting to overtake! What the hell are those idiots in blazers doing! Fair enough, Giancarlo pasing manoeuvre was hardly going to work, BUT AT LEAST HE WAS HAVING A GO! He's a bloody racing driver and its his job to finish as high up as he can, therefore, he has to attempt to overtake the car in front. And seeing as how the only real chance would have been that lap (as that race showed, there was no passing) he would have this is now my only opportunity, SO I'M GOING FOR IT! In my opinion, the FIA should have payed him for doing what he did because the fans have hardly seen any overtaking at all this year. Why on earth did they fine him for anyway? I've seen worse things before in F1 getting off with no fine. I think Dave Richards should just pay his fine and pat him on the back on behalf of all the RACING fans out there for showing us what a fiesty Italian RACER that he is! I'm sick of these processional races. Last year the cars were getting closer and closer, and I think if they had of left the rules we would have seen one of the best championships ever. So, thanks for screwing everything up Max Mosley and FIA! Once again you've managed to mess things up and have made me (and a lot of other people) very angry indeed.
Chris Cox
|