| Readers' Comments | |
|
| |
| Updated: 28 April 1998 | San Marino Issue |
|
Dear Atlas,
As far as I understand that there are 3 circumstances that bring about a good result in F1: the car, the driver, and the team. In Imola we had an example on how the team can affect the results. It was a two pit stops strategy for all the teams. Ferrari took 7 seconds each whereas Williams had a turn-around of 11 seconds. For example, at the second stop Irvine and Villeneuve went in at the same time. But Irvine left 6 seconds before Villeneuve. By the end of the race, the Williams driver caught up and was 2 seconds behind Irvine. We could have had a more entertaining ending should the Williams team be more competitive in the pits. There are drivers who are winners on the track but every race they are defeated by their own teams. We all want to see entertaining races and when this does not happen we blame the difference in technology only. There is no point in putting lots of resources in producing one-second faster machines. It is useless if you are going to waste it all in the turn-around. I congratulate Ferrari for having the three ingredients needed to be a winner.
Martin Espinosa
So it seems pretty much certain that F1 is off to Southeast asia next year. I don't see anything wrong with that (apart from their obsession with that great racing nation China) but what I am concerned with is that the calendar is not adapting to take account of these changes. Since about 1975, the F1 World Championship has followed a pretty much standard 16-race calendar. There were exceptions in 1977, 1995 and 1997 where there were 17 races, and in 1980 and 1983 with 15 races (if anyone would like to check to see if there are any other exceptions please do). Sixteen was decided on as it allowed teams to have 48 days of meetings a year, and to fit in testing in between. Some races have now held almost the same date for years, e.g. Monaco in May, Britain in July and Italy in September. Around this core of historic races, others have been slotted in to give a portfolio of events which today take place on 5 continents. However, so many advances have taken place in areas such as airfreighting (in the 70's cars were shipped to the races in South Africa, Brazil & Argentina) logistics and event format that I think the time has come to expand the calendar to about 19 or 20 races per year. Now I know teams hate to be far away from home (everyone was relieved to get back to Europe after the 3 long-hauls of Australia & South America) but the following proposals would significantly cut the amount of travelling involved.
Mark Atkins
Well I had predicted that Ralf Shumacher would show Hill the way home but I guess I was wrong! Hill showed in San Marino that he is still hungry for a result and the way he stormed up the traffic after having to come in for a nose cone (thanks Wurz) and even passing his team mate was a reall eye-opener. Ralf really should have done better but at least he finished the race. Coulthard won a race. So what? It took him long enough. it took Frentzen as many races to win his first GP in a Williams last year. This was Frentzens first year in a new team and his car wasn't near as dominant as McLaren is now. Coulthard will not win the championship. He made me cringe as the talked about he incident in Argentina. He kept going on about how it wasn't fair and "rules-are-rules" and he wants clarification. O.k., David, heres the rules:
1.Your aim is to win the race not give it to your *rival*
Get that David? Just do what you did in San Marino and you might end up in the top 3 at the end of the season!
Christopher Byrne
Well, once again a brilliant drive by Michael S. at Argentina gets me thinking that I have been too hard on the "poor" F1 circus... However, after San Marino, methinks not nearly hard enough ! With a 41% car finish rate, the Italian GP turned into a classic procession. Without Michael driving the wheels off the Ferrari, there wouldn't even have been the pretense of a race. After watching the (3) classes of the FIM's Malaysian GP and the US Superbike Championship at Laguna Seca this weekend, I classify the Italian GP as a yawn.....Even today's NASCAR race at Telledega despite it's attempt to put me to sleep, had the drama of the first four cars finishing within 1 second. After 4 GP's, here is my joy second per dollar (JSPD) summary rating.
JSPD System Explanation.
Australian GP - 2.5 1998 Year to Date Average - 4.125 Notes: Michael S. is the primary reason, F1 gets an awake rating with Alexander Wurz getting an honourable mention. I am no great fan of MS but one must be appreciative of a great driving. J. Villeneuve's great start does not make the needle deflect sufficiently to get rated.
John Edwards
Mika Hakkinen's retirement from the San Marino GP was rather suspect in my view. The McLaren team lead by Ron Dennis said to David Coulthard that for moving over for Mika in Australia, he would be repaid. Could have Mika driven into the McLaren garage, with apparent "gear box trouble", on Sunday in Imola returning the favour to David?
James Santi
Recent years in Formula One, have seen been dominated by cars, not drivers, cars. Is this right? Should the winner be the best driver, or the one with the best overall package? Formula One is, without doubt, a team sport. Has the burden been taken away from the drivers? Is technology taking over? My answer is Yes. Personally, I don't see this as being good for the sport. With increased technology comes incresed costs. The fail of such teams as Lotus, Pacific, March can be put down to the fact that they simply can not afford to run a Formula One car, let alone a competitive one. A competitive car. Surely the most marketable product would be a race where many drivers are capable of winning races. In my opinion, the following current drivers could, given a competitive car, win a race: M. Schumacher, Irvine, Villeneuve, Frentzen, Couthard, Hakkinen, Wurz, Fisichella, Alesi, Herbert, Barrichello, Tagaki, Hill, Panis, Trulli and Salo. Why aren't all these drivers given the chance? Because the cost is too high to compete with all of the big budget teams. So, effectively, we have (in normal circumstances) at the most, 5 drivers who have any realistic chance of winning a race. Before, I said that 16 drivers in my opinion are capable of winning races - but only 5 get a realistic chance - thats less than 1/3. Surely, this isn't right - surely something needs to be done. With more competitive cars, more exciting racing results. Wouldn't it just be amazing if the race for first came down to the last lap, with a multiple of cars challenging? To me, this would be Formula One at its very best. The winner would be the best driver, not car. In my opinion, technology leads to accidents. With the increased emphasis on technology, engineers are pushing the boundries harder and harder, and something has to break. This, could, lead to deaths in Formula One, something none of us wants to see. Could it be possible that technology led to the death of the great Aryton Senna - could it be that the car broke as a result of the Williams crew pushing the boundries of technolgy? I will leave it up to you In conclusion, I think that regulations should be introduced that limit technology, but increase competitiveness of the whole sport overall.
Scott Mansell
In Rory's Ramblings, Rory tells us that 'F1 is the pinnacle of World Motorsport' is a religious statement - presumably meaning it is a belief based more on faith than evidence. Well if it isn't then what is the pinnacle? - CART? come off it, if you look at the drivers, the top drivers in CART at the moment are Michael Andretti and Alessandro Zanardi. As for Zanardi, remember when he was at Lotus with Johnny Herbert, Johnny came off best, then remember when when Johnny was team mates with Hakkinen or Schumacher, they came off best (by quite a long way). It's pretty clear that Zanardi isn't as good as these drivers. As for Michael Andretti, look at his performance at McLaren in 1993 in his 13 races he only got to the podium once, whereas his team-mate, Senna got 5 wins that season. OK so it was Senna, but after Michael had gone, Hakkinen replaced him and out-qualified Senna in his first race back - something Andretti never did. In the final two qualifiers of that season (which Senna won in an inferior car, so he was obviously on form) Hakkinen was only 0.2 and 0.8 seconds off Senna's pace. Again that suggests that Andretti wasn't up to the standard of Hakkinen (who managed a podium as well but I don't recall which race it was). I could go on much longer mentioning things like Mansell's dominance in the Indycar series (even in 94 he was consistently the fastest of Lolas), the Lola F1 team, or the ridiculous points system they use in CART (anyone else think that a fourth and a sixth place is as worthy as a win?) but I'll have to stop, because I think I'm about to have a seizure! If you want the most exiting racing, watch Formula Vauxhall/Opel - If you want to see the best drivers fighting to be considered the cream of the cream (and the racing last season was pretty exciting as well) watch F1 If you want to see failed/has been F1 drivers and never were North American drivers doing processional races on Mickey-Mouse street circuits or races on boring ovals for a less prestigious title - watch CART.
Richard
|