It must be getting into the Silly Season already. We have had a lot of stories of late about Sebastian Vettel perhaps moving to Ferrari in 2014, after Mark Webber has spent a year in the Italian team. That does not sound right to me. At the start of 2011 Vettel signed a deal for 2011 on the basis that if he finished in the top 3 in the World Championship and won two races he would automatically stay with the team in 2012. His salary was $11 million, rising to $13.8 million in 2012. At the time the word was that Red Bull was offering Sebastian a $13.8 million retainer for 2013 with further performance-based options that would win him $16.5 million in 2014. The general consensus is therefore that he will not be on the market until 2015 and will lock himself into his 2014 contract with his performances in 2013. Obviously, these things can be negotiated away, but my feeling is that Vettel will not be screwing Red Bull because they have supported his career since 1998 and that he seems to be a decent guy. Let us not forget also that (at the moment) Red Bull is also offering him the chance to win rather more races than he would at Ferrari and presumably he would like to see how things develop in Italy before committing himself. It is always possible that he has signed something conditional on this and that, so that he has all his bases covered. In 2015 Vettel will be 27, turning 28 in the midseason. Fernando Alonso will be 33, turning 34, and the idea that the two will go together at Ferrari is a risk for the Italians, Alonso got very wobbly when he was teamed with Lewis Hamilton at McLaren in 2007 and while he is now older and wiser, there are no guarantees that he would not react in the same way again. Who can say? More likely, Vettel is discussing with Red Bull how to push the relationship further into the future, as they seem to like to have things squared away two years ahead of time.
Elsewhere in the paddock there are mumblings about Kimi Raikkonen and the Lotus F1 Team.The suggestion is that they are not getting along very well. I disagree. Yes, Kimi is different to handle than most drivers and it is good if he is happy in his work. At the moment he is not 100 percent happy with his car, which is not a surprise given that the rookie Romain Grosjean is going faster than him. However, at the moment Raikkonen is sixth in the World Championship, with 55 points; Grosjean is seventh with 53. They are both ahead of Jenson Button and are the two best-placed drivers not to have won a race so far. It seems quite likely that the team will win a race sooner or later and there has been a fair bit of disappointment thus far. Bear in mind too that Lotus is stonking along in third place in the Constructors’ Championship, ahead of Ferrari and Mercedes, both of which are (effectively) one car teams at the moment as Michael Schumacher and Felipe Massa have both underperformed in terms of puttings points on the board.
The tittle-tattle all seems to emanate from comments made in Montreal by Jacques Villeneuve, who thinks that the Lotus is a great car and with a top driver it would be leading the championship. It is an interesting reflection, but then again the definition of a top driver is also a matter of opinion. When all is said and done top drivers are decided upon by their points scores…
It is true that Kimi has not been happy with the steering of the Lotus and that there is still a certain amount of sharp-edge knocking needed to get the relationship smooth, but one cannot fault what Kimi has achieved thus far. Maybe he does not have the raw speed that once he did, but he knows that winning championships is about scoring points and he is doing that very well.
Joe, a lot has been said of Fernando Alonso’s shakiness when paired with Lewis Hamilton at McLaren. But he wasn’t the first driver to display shakiness in the Woking team. Juan Pablo Montoya, Alain Prost and Niki Lauda are all great drivers who’ve experienced this insecurity at McLaren. Couldn’t it be Ron Dennis’ way of running the team (in respect of sparking a sense of one driver being liked more than the other) that was one of the reasons for Alonso’s shakiness in 2007?
I agree. Fernando signed with McLaren expecting support like he received from Flav. Instead he faced a competitive scenario with a driver backed by the team principal, who had an interest in ensuring his protoge succeeded.
That said, top drivers seem to work best in an environment where they are competing against the rest of the field rather than against their teammate.
I disagree. Ron Dennis took on Fernando because he believed that he and Lewis Hamilton would be the best available combination. He did not set out to support one driver or the other. Ron is a very logical man, although he does not always come across that way. The choice of drivers was based in the belief that two great drivers can handle competition, as LH and JB are now showing. Fernando got wobbly and started playing by different “rules” which blew his relationship with the team and meant that he had to move. That was a weakness. Ferrari understands that he is a great driver, but it would be foolish on their part to put him under similar pressure. Maybe he is more mature now, but does a leopard change it’s spots? More importantly, is it worth trying to find out when you have other workable choices?
Joe
Is Webber stil in the frame for Massa’s seat? If so where might Massa go, or is it the end for him?
Martin
Too early to say.
off to join Rubens at Indy, I reckon
I disagree Joe. RD took on Alonso because he brought in some big bucks in sponsor money and represented at the time a huge market for all other McLaren sponsors (Mercedes for example). The problem is more how everyone behaved once there were issues and in that FA and RD were at fault. I don’t think Fernando had real issues with Hamilton (of course at times he used Hamilton to express his frustration but that is different). So I think in theory it is not about pairing tow top drivers that might cause the issue is how you manage them and in that McLaren certainly seem to manage things differently with JB and LH last 2 years
Sorry, but this comment shows how little you know about Ron.
None of us likely know Ron as well as you Joe, granted.
But looking from the outside in on that woe begotten season with LH and FA, I think Ron should have controlled Lewis a bit more pragmatically in support of the two time world champion he actively recruited. I do believe his sensibilities were blurred by having his protege so competitive right out of the box and by the brewing spygate issues.
In the end Ron achieved exactly what he wanted, two equal highly combative drivers who both finished tied for second. Talk about kissing your sister!
Racers believe that drivers should be left to race. McLaren has done that on almost all occasions. However, in the case of Mika Hakkinen I believe there were two occasions when he was allowed to win. One was because the team made a mistake and he was going to lose a race as a result of it, which was not considered to be fair. The other I do not wholly remember but it was a complex story of loyalties and the need to support Hakkinen, who was coming back from his injury. I’d have to look it up and do not currently have time.
Häkkinen’s first win was a gift from Villeneuve in the ’97 finale. Early in that race, Mika passed up an opportunity to overtake the Canadian, who was fighting Schumacher for the championship. [The McLaren drivers having agreed not to interfere in the title battle.] Then mid-race Mika was held up by a purposely slow Frentzen (Villeneuve’s team-mate, acting to delay Michael), which allowed Coulthard to gain positions on them.
Following Schumacher’s demise, Villeneuve only needed to score to be crowned and was told to allow the McLarens through. [Williams had arranged McLaren's non-interference by a pre-race deal to such effect.] Patrick Head went to the McLaren garage to confirm Jacques’ intention to fall back and instructions were relayed to DC to move aside, allowing Mika to win.
In the wake of the race, Ron Dennis was keen to stress the decision had been made with a view to Mika’s confidence. Dennis was right insofar as the victory immediately preceded the Finn’s purple patch. Throughout that period McLaren were subject to allegations of favouritism, which emanated from those who wished to imply the service provided to Schumacher due to his contractual status was mirrored by all teams in deed, if not in word.
But surely Mr Dennis should of known with his past experiences that two competitive animals such as racing drivers that this was bound to happen?
There are plenty of examples of successful partnerships which did work… and plenty of examples which did not.
early 2007 : Alonso was the reigning, double, back-to-back world champion and first and only man to beat Schumi and Ferrari in 6 years. Lewis was the reigning GP2 champion, a McLaren test driver and a promising talent. As such, a perfectly logical, well-thought out team construction, in line with McLaren’s stated policy of getting the best drivers available. There was no question of accommodating 2 superstar egos in the team (at the time of putting the team together) as Lewis was a rookie with no proven reputation in F1, only promise. No-one, not even Ron, could possibly have known at the start of the season how much of an immediate impact Lewis would make at the start of his F1 career.
I think that Ron suspected it.
. . . but forget to mention it to Fernando?
what were Fernando’s “rules”?
You would need to look back and read about what he did.
And didn’t Fernando initially set up or help with the set up on Lewis’ car for like the first 6-8 or so races. Hamilton did very well. As I remember, when Fernando stopped sharing his set up with Lewis, Lewis had a slight “recovery” period where he did not perform as well. Or was that bit of reporting bologna? It’s been a while since 2007…
I agree that its in Ron’s best interests to have two strong drivers. The history of the team suggests this. However, there are plenty of examples in that history where the relationship has been mismanaged to the detriment of the team’s overall success.
I would be interested to find out (probably in Fernando’s autobiography in many years time), what representations he was given as to the support he was likely to get. I just find it hard to believe that Ron had no motivation to support a youngster whom he had personally sponsored throughout his racing career. Surely it would have been a dent in his reputation/ego to have done that for many years only to have his protoge spectacularly fail? Hence why I would respectfully suggest that he may (whether consciously or not) had something to gain by supporting Lewis.
I disagree with the statement “Michael Schumacher has underperformed.” 5 technical failures from 7 races. It’s more along the lines of “the Mercedes car has underperformed.”
I do not believe in bad luck.
But surely you do. Luck is real both good and bad unless the universe is an absolute meritocracy. I understand and maybe agree with the intent of your comment but please elaborate.
In F1 you make your own luck. A driver’s car might break down, for example, because his crew has no faith in him and are just going through the motions. They have to believe in him to make it work. In the race track a driver might seem to be involved in crashes that are not of his making, but the truth is that he was in the wrong place in the road. There is a certain amount if what I would call Fate which is beyond the control of anyone but the champions always make their own luck. I am going to get bogged down in semantics, you may have a different interpretation of luck. That’s fine.
Joe, I understand your point, what about Red Bull in 2010? Was that just a general reliability issue?
On the point of Kimi – I’m not aware of team that has provided him with power steering to his liking, ever.
Whilst I take your point that an unmotivated crew will be prone to mistakes, and that drivers can put their car into places which put them at risk; I can’t help finding your position, at least in part, ridiculous.
That part failures have happened to afflict Schumacher and not Rosberg surely is mere chance, that there happened to be an undetected defect in one component and not its apparently identical sibling.
I’d agree that teams have a role to play internally with a culture of rigour and perfection in their work and that over the balance of a season, a team’s reliability record is something I’m sure the boffins track very closely to see if their organisation is at fault.
As for cars being in the wrong place on the road… well it depends on the incident. Grosjean/Schumacher at Monaco? Possibly. Koboyashi / Raikkonen at Monaco a few years back? Calling that anything other than bad luck for Koboyashi would seem cruel.
(For those who’ve forgotten what could well have been a Monaco debut third for Kobo – Raikkonnen was tailing him coming out of the tunnel and completely ballsed up the breaking into the chicance, slamming into the back of Koboyashi. Raikko changed his nose and rejoined the race, Kobo was forced to retire with a missing rear wing.)
You don’t have to agree with me, but you do not have a right to call my position ridiculous. You may not understand what I am saying but that is why I have this blog to help educate people. If you have an open mind, you might learn something. Being in the wrong place on the road is very often seen as bad luck, but it comes from a lack of education. Drivers who missed karting often suffer from this. It is a question of instinct, knowing exactly where to be. It is not about luck. If you get hit from behind that is another matter.
You may not believe in luck but you can’t say all of Schumacher’s retirements were because the crew had no faith in him. Vettel almost lost the 2010 title due to technical failures. Does that mean the Red Bull crew had no faith in Vettel? I agree everyone has their own opinion and I respect that, but I think it’s a little unfair to Schumacher to say that he has underperformed considering he has never really got a chance to perform when the car was competitive (Australia, China, Monaco).
I did not say that. Read the post carefully.
Your “drivers who missed karting” point intrigues me. Bruno Senna springs to mind – do you think he’s suffering at the moment?
And can you think of any drivers who learned (or were coached) about road positioning while driving in F1, but were lacking it at first?
did you call her spanish at any other point in time???? thats a joke ya’ll, relax.
Jem – just to pick up on a small point you made about Raikkonen “completely ballsed up the breaking into the chicance”. At the time opinion seemed to be that this was indeed the case. However, ever since Perez’s major braking problem at the same spot there’s been some revisionism on both Button and Coulthard having identical crashes in the same braking zone. Can we not now see that Raikkonen probably braked while going over the same ‘wave’ on the track.
It’s just curious that it happened at exactly the same place. Had Raikkonen’s car been turned into the barrier then no-one would have doubted it was the same cause but his car staying in the middle of the tarmac was probably due to his drastic sawing of the steering wheel. Look at the in-car footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et8hVVM0Voo&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL1B2C616868547EB6
Indeed.
I was referencing the incident simply because expecting Koboyashi to anticipate this freak braking failure and somehow position himself out of the path of Raikkonnen’s car is (to avoid repeating the R-word) “unjustified”.
I fully accept Joe’s point that in some incidents, the “innocent” party has made a mistake with their track position, making a collision at worst inevitable and at best merely probable.
But I remain convinced that sometimes you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, that you cannot anticipate every possibility of the actions (deliberate or accidental) of those around you.
Sorry Jem, you’re mistaken. Raikkonen was “sacked” by Ferrari at the end of 2009.
Kobayashi raced in Brazil and Abu Dhabi in 2009. His first Monaco was during his first season, ie 2010, when Raikkonen was in rallying.
So other than those 2 races in 2009, this season is the only one when Kimi and Kamui have shared the starting grid in F1.
Wasn’t is Sutil not Kamui, think the point is relevant though, even if he got the ‘innocent’ party confused
Sorry, yeah, Pete is absolutely right. I could only faintly remember it as someone who was outperforming his car and “deserved” the result.
I think it would be easier just to say you are one of the British media who have an intense dislike for all things Michael Schumacher and try to slander him at any and every opportunity.
To further that point perhaps you should look at some of the positions Schumacher was in when his car retired to show how absurd your accusations of “his crew has no faith in him” are.
Don’t be so rude – and learn to read properly what is written. I was not being specific about Michael. I was talking in general terms. It is not my fault if you cannot grasp that concept.
Secondly, you are a dullard if you believe that there is a conspiracy against Michael based on English-German rivalries of the 1940s. The world has moved on… but perhaps you got left behind.
There are reasons that Michael Schumacher is not as respected as he should be in the F1 community (and that includes all nationalities, including Germans). You need to learn a bit more about F1 if you are to understand these.
The thread was about Schumacher so it’s hard to believe you were not talking about him.
It’s nothing to do with WW2! Perhaps I should not have said the British media. I see two prominent British journalists, yourself and BBC’s Andy Benson who clearly have a chip on both your shoulders concerning Schumacher.
Your last paragraph clearly shows this and stops you from taking a reasoned logical viewpoint with anything concerning him. I also apologise if I appeared rude.
Andrew Benson is one of the best journalists writing in F1. It is funny that we should have the same views, don’t you think? Why would two experienced, knowledgable and objective F1 writers share the same view about any subject? It has got nothing to do with nationality.
“Andrew Benson is one of the best journalists writing in F1″ I think you will find 99% of the people who actually read his articles and comment on them reflect the opposite view for various reasons it isn’t appropriate to comment on here..
No matter what your views about Schumacher from the past, do you not think it best to put them aside and take a rational unemotional viewpoint concerning him now. Without like your friend A Benson looking to stick the foot in every half chance and even when there is no opportunity like this season.
You think that? Prove it!
You think that 99% of people agree with you? Who are they? Some of your friends, I suppose. Anyway, I’m sure the 99% is hardly a scientific survey.
Because you are a Schumacher fan (that’s OK) don’t get enraged if someone says something you interpret as insulting your hero.
Comments like yours are a reason I have given up other internet blogs & it’s a great shame if this sort of stuff is spreading to Joe’s site.
Peter C, I think you need to reread what I said then read the comments under any Benson article and you will see what I mean. I also merely stated in an overly clumsy way that Joe isn’t Schumacher’s biggest fan which I’m sure he would be the first to admit to. That’s why I said about the luck comment in that instance not making any sense.
It’s hardly me becoming enraged now is it? Since in your words I’m now Schumacher’s biggest fan I’m starting to feel bad I haven’t bought any books or anything about the worlds greatest F1 driver ever by far lol. I’ll ask Andy Benson for a few recommendations!
Joe, since your first reply regarding Schumachers ‘bad luck’ was as you say in general terms, could you further elaborate where and how he has underperformed so far this season?
In my opinion the only mistake he made was crashing into Senna in Barcelona. I think his qualifying and race pace has been pretty similar to Rosberg so far, and whatever definition of luck you choose to use, Schumacher has had his fair share of bad luck.
Please explain.
P.S. I must say it annoys me you are lecturing someone to read properly, while 2 lines later you make up some ww2 comment that has never been written. I suspects mr. snowman made this comment earlier and I haven’t read it, or my knowledge of the English language (as a Dutchman) isn’t adequate..
Joe won’t elaborate on Schumacher under performing this year because he can’t. An example of someone who writes a very good F1 blog letting their emotions become involved rather than any sort of rational thought process.
If that’s hard to understand being Dutch, all you need to know is Joe hates Schumacher.
You just don’t understand, or maybe you don’t want to understand. Fine. Be blissfully ignorant..
Living vicariously isn’t living. It’s existing, at best. By your comments, you appear to have an unhealthy obsession with certain driver(s), resulting in rude and unjustified accusations towards 2 people (Joe & Mr. Benson), both of whom have earned respect in their professions.
Tim,
Thanks for letting me know I have an obsession with a 40 yr old German man. I just hope I don’t stand up for Vijay Mallya anytime on Joe’s blogs then things really will be bad for me.
Schumacher also had his fair share of good luck in his 1st F1 career.
Having a team built around him, pandering to his every wish including no competition from the subserviant team-mates.
Having no true rival over his career, exiting the pits in Canada 1998 and driving Frentzen off the road, or crossing the finish line for the 1998 British GP whilst driving through the pits. Having a tyre manufacturer supplying him bespoke rubber and paying millions for the Ferrari teams testing all year round. Or what about Barrichello having to return to Europe to test tyres for the team, after racing in Australia, then having to suffer jet lag after returning to Malaysia for the next race.
Swerving across the track at almost every incident where others made a better start.
If you have forgotten this, think back to the outrage after Vettel made that indentical move against Button in japan last year.
I am a Ferrari fan, and enjoyed the success we had during his time there, but it was boring as hell, knowing that he would not have any competition within the team. Or if he deigned it, he would allow the other to win a race. A situation that would never have happened if the Old Man had still been in charge, after all, Ferrari won races, the drivers lost them. This is also why I like Williams so much, they have the same ethos about them.
Mclaren dominated during 1988 and 1989, yet the rivalry was unforgettable and defined an era.
It’s to my eternal regret that Senna never raced for my team, and I love the fact that Alonso, who I consider to be the greatest driver since Senna, is there now, brilliant.
Regarding journalists who I think are at the top of the F1 tree, there’s only 3 I read religiously, Joe, Andrew Benson and James Allen.
Anyway, rant over
Absolutely right Joe, and something that has been said before by many other people. Louis Pasteur’s quote is the classic summation: “fortune favours the prepared mind”. Stirling Moss has stated in a few places that the best drivers also tend to be the “luckiest”. Fangio’s evasion of the pile up at the 1950 Monaco Grand Prix was considered by some to be lucky, but he dismissed it and explained that he was aware the crowd wasn’t looking at him so something must have happened ahead. The ability to be able to process and interpret that sort of information while punting an Alfa 158 around the streets of Monaco isn’t luck, but ability. On the other hand, Schumacher’s coming together with Liuzzi at the 2010 Abu Dhabi GP was considered by many to be bad luck on Schumacher’s part. This is clearly tosh. If you spin you car to a halt in front of an opening lap stream of traffic then getting hit by another car should be expected. That was his fault just as much as it was Tonio’s.
Once in a while genuine bad luck might strike a driver, but only once in a while. For it to happen over and over again to the same driver, while his team mate scores over 30 times as many points, that isn’t luck at play.
My favourite sporting quote on this is from Alan Ball when manager of Man City (I think), along the lines of: “I don’t believe in luck. But I do believe you need it.”
on that note, i just read an article in germanies “spiegel online”. reporting on hamiltons win in montreal, the author , ralf bach, accuses lewis of being out of touch with reality and behaving like a dive inside mclaren. his constant complains, according to bach, have lead to team members being fed up with him. therefore, the only reason he hasn’t been fired yet, was his “gasfuß” (roughly tranclating to speed), meanwhile button managed to win the confidence of the team through being nice and through his analytical skills.
he also cites a comment from lewis, where he said that the driver was responsible for the qualifying lap, meanwhile the race was the responsibility of the teams strategy. he interprets this as hamilton blaming the team for his mishaps.
in your logic, this would that explain hamiltons streak of “bad luck”. he lost the confidence of the team, and therefore, they are not going the extra mile, designing the strategy and preparing his car. on the other hand, i have never read accusations like this on your blog. so do you think this is nonsense joe?
i have no insight, but it seemed pretty one sided, and didn’t really fit with whitmarshs behavior after hamiltons win in montreal. (bach also writes mercedes was not very keen on signing hamilton, because he “broke to many agreements”, and mechanics fearing he would bring nothing but trouble, most other rumors see mercedes as one of the more likely seats for hamilton, should he decide to leave mclaren.)
Bach is not always right.
I agree, wasn’t it Gary Player who said, “the harder I practice, the luckier I get.”
When I was in sales, a guy who had done very well one month was accused by one of his peers of being lucky. He said, “I am, and the harder I work the luckier I get”
I am a fan of Kimi and think he is doing a great job this year, certainly when you compare his achievements with another ex world champ who took a break and came back, we have already seen him on the podium twice so far this season. It appears, at least to me, that his one bugbear, the media/pr commitments don’t seem to be bothering him as much as years gone by, Joe will of course have first have experience of this,……
Also, am I the only one that feels it rather sad that the only time we appear to hear from JV nowadays is when he’s issuing a contentious sound bite? That “Boy band member” comment certainly bit him in the a$$!
That was what JV was trying to say. The car is really good because Grosjean got destroyed by Alonso in his rookie half year but now he is showing up Kimi. While I don’t completely agree with this it has some logic.
If Schumacher made his comeback with that Lotus and Grosjean as his team mate instead of someone of the proven quickness of Rosberg how differently do you think things might have looked? How would Kimi have looked sitting alongside Rosberg in the 2010 Merc?
and Jacques was such a stand out driver wasn’t he?
Yes he was – were you watching in ’96-’97?
Why is this move so often lauded as such a big deal? We see similar moves a few times a season now. It’s also worth remembering that MS had backed off so as not to catch the woeful Giovanni Lavaggi mid corner. Michael quickly realised that if he had to back off at the exit, JV would just blow by him on the straight, so he sacrificed entry speed for exit speed. If you listen to the BBC commentary you will hear Brundle say “and Schumacher slows right down!” as they went into the corner. It was a good opprtunistic move, but nothing more than that.
Uh, really? I’m not particularly a JV fan but that required balls especially with the backmarker in his way. Anyway, you can’t compare “overtaking” today with years past – JV didn’t have DRS at his disposal.
Does this mean we get to talk rot about rot?
I can do that . . .
This is the meat we come here for Joe.
Kimi’s done well, but the shock is Grosjean. Faster and more consistent in qualifying, I think. Does he have Swiss/French dual nationality? In races, sites designate him using the Swiss flag, but he claims to be French.
He is both.
Canny move. (Not a “rookie” though Joe. As you know, he raced in F1 in 2009). Heartening for Alguersuari to see Grosjean doing so well.
He only had 5 or so races in 2009. This is his first season.
*First FULL season, I should’ve said.
One point overlooked about the status quo at RBR: the future employment of A. Newey.
The top car in need of top-line drivers: Sauber.
my view would be that FA would want to move to R Bull. he needs ot win and hes not going to do it at Ferrari
he was leading the championship pre Canada though….
I believed that at the time Vettel signed his 2011 deal (so before 2011) that is was a ’5 year’ deal, meaning that provided all the performance clauses are met, he will only be available in 2016. However, that’s probably rubbish, and I can’t remember where I read it.
Hamilton could move, but would be mad to do so. And what will Schumacher do?
I am not a dedicated Kimi fan, but I acknowledge that he and Alonso remain the most talented drivers of the post Schumacher era. I really take exception to someone like JV, who would rank absolute bottom in a list of all F1 champs on merit, bad mouthing the great KR.
I recall JV applying his brand of shit poison against teammate Button at BAR, and really you have to just ignore it. Someone accurately described him as a “poison dwarf”…..
The situation at Lotus, however, does raise concerns about their failure to give KR what he needs. He is always able to sense straightaway if the car is not 100% and for him anything less is unsatisfactory. You might ask, though, why all is perfect for Grosjean?
From elsewhere a few weeks back, Lotus were unhappy at Kimi’s lack of feedback in developing/setting up/correcting the car. Perhaps he would have got on better with Colin Chapman, who had no time for driver’s opinions on the car, it was his, he set it up and the driver just drove.
I’ll say this, Kimi’s comeback has been a hell of a lot more impressive than Michael Schumachers. JV likes to stir things up but I’d like to hear what basis he thinks the Lotus is the best car, haven’t seen him around much before Montreal
Joe
Its not a martter if believing in bad luck re MSC…its acknowledging facts…
This week’s refreshing news, that seven-time TdF “winner” Lance Armstrong is finally being charged as an habitual drug-doping cheat, rekindles memories of Le Tour de France automobile 1899-1986.
The event where tin-top Ferraris, Jaguars, Alfas, Fords, Porsches, Matras, and Renault, thrashed around sections of the TdF parcours, driven by elite drivers.
I think we’d all like to see this classic event revitalised soon. With the current enthusiasm for pedal power, it forms a better link than the very silly, and thankfully abortive, attempts to meld football with motor-racing.
Ron has already had Mr. Cavendish pedalling a McLaren, and Ferrari bicycles are almost commonplace. So how about sounding out the possibility of a revival of the Le Tour de France automobile, Joe?
Just imagine, Raikkonen in a Lotus-Caterham zipping up; Alpe d’Huez, Mont Ventoux, and ten laps of the Champs Élysées!
Too silly?
I think you will find it already exists.
The “Historique” version, yes, but only pre-1966 cars are allowed to win that event. I appealing for a full blown revival of the real TdF Auto with top-line Sports car and F1 drivers competing.
Here’s some footage of the 1959 race with Olivier Gendebien winning in the now iconic, and almost priceless, Ferrari GT 250:
http://www.britishpathe.com/video/automobile-tour-of-france
Wow, Le Mans start at Spa and 4 abreast into Eau Rouge as the first corner! Rouen is in the video as well. Circuit is still driveable, all the corners still there. Try it if travelling to / from Le Mans.
Have you driven on the old Rouen circuit Paul? You write “driveable”, but presumably too broken up to negotiate fast?
Do they open up Le Sartre for us to have a free blast at home-time?
Yes, the Rouen circuit is fully and completely driveable (it’s all public roads) and I have been round it, including the bottom hairpin, in an Alfa 156 and a FIAT Camper van. La Sarthe is not driveable in total – the section from start of Porsche Curves to tertre Rouge is closed off – but I have cycled the full circuit – including the pit straight – on a mountyain bike !!
Excellent! Sounds like fun. So will you be going to Le Mans this month, and perhaps lingering in our old Colony for the TdF? I hear a Preston Lad is favourite!
By the way, the driver of the camper van had competed as a motorcycle sidecar passenger in the late 60′s at Rouen! Complete nutter going down the hill balancing from side to side through the sweepers!
Joe – it would be interesting to do a blog post about the success of the guys in in the Lotus/Renault garage (not the drivers or figureheads). Given the turmoil surrounding the team and the departures, they have done a great job.
I agree.
I read last week that Lotus posted a £20 million loss last year, but better than the year before when they lost £35 or some such number. With shakey finances the development of the car has to suffer as the season goes on. Both Renault and Sauber have suffered from this in the past.
So, Joe, you subscribe to the sabotage theory as far as Michael’s car goes, as you think the team have lost faith in him, Bizarre.
How many times have there been ‘lucky’ results as well as unlucky ones, far too many to mention, but a run of 5 DNFs in 7 races has to be a record for a so called top team. Still, if you say so, I will go with your sabotage theory.
I never mentioned sabotage. I think it is an absurd suggestion.
You suggested the team had lost faith, it’s the same difference, just as fate and luck are two sides of the same coin.
No, I was not talking specifically about Raikkonen. I was talking in general terms.
No suggestion of sabotage… only that if the mechanics have no faith in a driver, and only “go through the motions” when building and setting up the car, rather than taking the utmost care and double-checking every single thing, then failures are more likely.
It doesn’t even have to be a case of having no faith in him either; some mechanics are just better than others, full-stop. Sometimes a change of crew can work wonders for a driver’s reliability.
I am talking generally here and have no real opinion as to whether this is happening in Schumacher’s case (how could I, I’m only a spectator!) but it wouldn’t surprise me if it were.
So, one side of the Mercedes garage are demoralised amateurs while the others are motivated professionals? This faithless mechanics theory only works if the whole team is suffering. If it is only one side of the garage, then someone is not doing something right, and if he is not doing something right it is either by mistake or on purpose. 5 out of 7 DNFs seems an awful lot of mistakes, so hopefully, as you say, a change of crew might be in order but by the time they have worked out who to replace it will be too late, well, it’s pretty much too late all ready.
> So, one side of the Mercedes garage are demoralised amateurs while the others are motivated professionals?
I have no idea in this particular instance, but yes, there’s certainly been tales told of such-and-such a driver’s mechanics losing faith in him, thus yes, one side of a garage can be motivated professionals, and the other side can be demoralised couldn’t-give-a-stuff…er…professionals, not acting very professionally though.
I don’t understand why the “faithless mechanics theory” should only work if the whole team is suffering – the F1 two-drivers-per-team arrangement has often been described as two teams working against each other under one roof, especially when competitiveness between drivers is high.
> If it is only one side of the garage, then someone is not doing something right, and if he is not doing something right it is either by mistake or on purpose.
Can’t disagree with that. But generally speaking I would imagine it’s probably just cock-up rather than conspiracy. As you say, the trick is to find the faulty element… AND guarantee that their replacement will be any better.
Talking about the driver changes is always funny, but we only know who runs where next year March, when the new season starts.
Mind you, with the current form shifts of teams and drivers, suddenly Williams, Sauber, Lotus or even Force India seem like the place to be. Sadly for Vergne and Ricciardo, they seem to be in a team that will never allow them to go for better places. So I´m definitly be expecting one of them to take over Mark Webber´s seat (provided he´d leave Red Bull).
Thanks Joe, for your refreshing views, I read them with joy (even though I may not always agree with them, but I´m okay with that and most likely so are you).
This is the first time I hear of any “issues” between KR and Lotus. The steering issue as been on-going for a while but surely, all teams have issues like this that span months before they are resolved… Then there was the “Kimi can’t go rallying” thing but that can’t have surprised anyone (incl. KR).. I just can’t see (real) issues related to either performance on the driver side or the car on the team side – Am I the only one?
I was hoping for Joe’s input on Kimi’s standing in the paddock? If Kimi remains on par with Grosjean (who obivously has killer potential), will he be sought after when his current deal expires?
And “yes” – I am a KR fan..
Kimi needs to beat Grosjean. It is a normal state of affairs.
Alonso got very wobbly when he was teamed with Lewis Hamilton. Yep, thats an understament if I ever heard (read) one.
So when do you think Mark Webber moves to Ferrari???
In 2013
Is that all signed sealled and done?
Probably not.
Wobbly – he was like a giant weeble set in motion by a demolition ball.
From what I have read the Snowman wasn’t at all rude in his comment to you Joe.
Your response of:
“Secondly, you are a dullard if you believe that there is a conspiracy against Michael based on English-German rivalries of the 1940s”
Is rude. Especially as the Snowman never even mentioned WW2 in his post.
The initial comment talks about the underperformance of the Mercedes car. He doesn’t mention luck. Maybe you should start reading what is written.
Point 1: Maybe you think it is polite to accuse someone of slander and insinuate that they are biased. I don’t, I find it insulting and I think that any intelligent person would see that.
Point 2: I am not being rude. Read it carefully and you will see that I said very carefully, someone would be a dullard if… not you are a dullard.
Point 3: This blog is my house. I invite you in and I do not expect to be kicked in the gonads. Most people are able to enter into discussion without needing to be offensive. If someone is rude, I tend to speak my mind, which I think is perfectly fair.
Point 4: If you don’t like it, there is a very simple solution.
Incorrect. Your exact paragraph copied:
Secondly, you are a dullard if you believe that there is a conspiracy against Michael based on English-German rivalries of the 1940s. The world has moved on… but perhaps you got left behind.
Clearly says “YOU ARE A DULLARD”.
I presume you are trying to funny. At least I hope so.
Will… you idiot:
DIRECT QUOTE “Secondly, you are a dullard IF you believe…”
RIGHT THERE! A FREAKING “IF” You are a dullard IF. IF!
If you are going to call some one out… make sure you are not DEAD WRONG first…especially when you are in their house.
The entire sentence, from the first capital letter untill the period at the end must be read as an entire statement. What you did was take his statement out of context.
His statement could easily be rearranged to read:
IF you belive there is a conspiracy against Michael based on English-German rivalries of the 1940s, you are a dullard.
You really are bad at reading comprehension.
Do you understand the word “If”, Will?
Unfortunately Joe you do not seem capable of as you say entering into discussion without being offensive. Your comment of “any intelligent person would see that” is clearing implying that I am not intelligent.
At no point was I rude or offensive to you. I was entering into a discussion.
It is all there in the words. It was very clear what I wrote and what was meant by those words. If you did not understand it, then you might be accused of being dim. The other option was that you did understand, but were trying to be funny. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Thus I was being kind, rather than insulting.
Unfortunately Will… you do not seem capable of entering someones domain without criticizing them.
I have seen Joe have numerous discussions with individuals without being offensive. After all… he just writes stories for his personal blog. The people who create the comments here are the ones who start the arguments. You could easily disagree with Joe and just move along. But people feel compelled to come here and tell Joe why they think he is wrong.
I used the analogy before. If you get invited in to someones house… or rather in this case it is more like walking into someones house uninvited…
You walk into someones house uninvited and start telling them that their curtain choices are terrible or that they have bad taste in art… that is rude.
Normal, polite people keep their opinions to themselves since it is someones house and they are entitled to their bad taste in art or curtains.
But you decide to start telling them what you think… and then you dare say that the homeowner is rude for telling the univited prick that they are wrong?
Sorry to go off on a rant… but people gotta learn. Not that you will learn, Will. You seem to be the type who will never be wrong even when you are.
Sorry to argue on your behalf Joe… and thanks for your hospitality here.
Thank you Dale, exactly what I was thinking too.
Joe, we really don’t want to read undisciplined comments from Chavs, and you certainly don’t want to either. Please tighten up your filter, and put the blighters on probation. It’s their parent’s domain to instil basic manners, not our.
Or just tell the troll to p*ss off.
Just a comment on ‘luck’ and superstition. I am an out and out fan of Schueys but his insistence on a car number change with Rosberg in the first Mercedes season shows how superstition rules over him.
And what we are ruled by in the end always masters us.
If I had two minutes of his time, I would suggest to him to forsake superstition, which has paid him very badly as a belief system and again shine with the talent that God gave him.
Your God affects the results of Grand Prix races and rewards the drivers of faith? Isn’t there more important stuff he should be looking after?
Like maybe use his celestial Google to search for a children’s cancer hospital that could use a hand?
Rob, didn’t say he’d get an edge, just lose an encumbrance. Think Schuey is well involved with children’s charity (Unesco??) Don’t know of a god that does help people win races, but all the gurus take good money to try!!!
Smug.
Joe, am I alone in finding it odd that Perez is in the frame for Ferrari when he seems to be consistently outpaced by Kobayashi? KK always seems to be 0.3-0.5 sec. per lap faster, either in qualifying or fastest race lap. Perez is certainly a top-line driver and his Canada podium was earned without rain or a safety car. I just find it odd that no one mentions he’s not really out-pacing his own teammate in level machinery.
Perez and Kobayashi where on different strategies, that meant Perez had to take care of his tires in order to make a one stop strategy work. Counterintuitive as it may seem, sometimes you have to so slower in order to go faster.
Nevertheless, he is still the guy who managed to score two podiums with the same car. Being quicker on a lap is one thing, being quicker over the length of a race is another. Sometimes a driver has to accept not to have a flying lap in order to keep his car/tires in good shape in “money time”. That’s exactly what Perez has managed so far… So to me, it is very logical that Perez is linked to Ferrari (besides the fact that he is a Ferrari Academy Driver of course…) and not Kobayashi.
How unusual, Jacques “Le Bebe” Villeneuve commenting on others driving performances. One thing can be said about him, he rarely misses an opportunity to self promote.
Joe,
When the subject of Lewis leaving McLaren comes up, possible destinations are always Red Bell or Mercedes and sometimes even Ferrari. No one ever mentions Lotus. Do you think they would have a shot if Lewis decided to leave McLaren ?