Jump to content


Photo

the depth of the field


  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

#1 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 August 2009 - 12:51

I was thinking lately about how remarkable the playing field is at the mo. We have three word champions, and will definitely have a fourth this season. There are twelve (!!) race winners in the current field. Wow, when I think back to the days after Senna's death when we only had a couple, its been a remarkable shift. Of the ten teams, only two (Toro Rosso & Williams) don't have a race winner in at least one of their cars. Ferrari, McLAren, Red Bull, & Brawn have winners in both cars. We've had three spectacular championships in a row, real nail biters. This year appeared to be a walk over but is getting more interesting as Red Bull makes a resurgance. Its been a great stretch for us fans.

Let me say it again: twelve winners on the current grid. Remarkable really. Doncha think? Oh, and now the winningest driver in history is making a comeback, albeit temporary, making it four WDC's in the field. We live in interesting times.

Edited by Craven Morehead, 03 August 2009 - 12:54.


Advertisement

#2 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 03 August 2009 - 12:58

If Schumacher races in Brazil and the world championship is decided in the race before it, we would have 5 world champions driving that race! Very amazing. We have more race winners than non winners.

#3 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,810 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 August 2009 - 13:00

I agree, the field has been bloody good the past 2 years or so. One particular good point is that there's no traditional paydrivers - yes there's the likes of Sutil paying for a place, but no really shit driver that nobody would sign if not for the money. We were used to have that kind of characters in the F1 grids for a very long time.

#4 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 August 2009 - 14:00

It's a golden age for F1, totally agree. Amazing considering it's run by Mr Greedy and his pervert friend, the cars can't overtake and the stewarding is rigged. How??? :confused: :lol:

#5 Owen

Owen
  • Member

  • 10,692 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 03 August 2009 - 14:03

Hoping I'm not veering off topic but I cannot help but think a small part of Schu's reasoning for a comeback is to see how he rates against:
Kimi - Schu was unwilling to partner with him for 2007 and opted to leave. It would be sweet justice for him if he could show him up.
Nando - Schu lost out to the WDC twice against him.
Hamilton - Schu never got the chance to really race against him.

Edited by Owen, 03 August 2009 - 14:04.


#6 A.Fant

A.Fant
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 August 2009 - 14:50

I agree, the field has been bloody good the past 2 years or so. One particular good point is that there's no traditional paydrivers - yes there's the likes of Sutil paying for a place, but no really shit driver that nobody would sign if not for the money. We were used to have that kind of characters in the F1 grids for a very long time.

*cough* Nakajima *cough*

Williams would be challenging for 3rd in the WCC with a proper driver in the 2nd car, and that includes the likes of Fisichella.

Edited by A.Fant, 03 August 2009 - 14:51.


#7 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,867 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 03 August 2009 - 15:22

is naka really that bad?

#8 rookie

rookie
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: November 04

Posted 03 August 2009 - 15:30

is naka really that bad?


probably not, but he's not that good is he?

I would presume he would be at the bottom of most team's shopping lists, if on them at all.


#9 A.Fant

A.Fant
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 03 August 2009 - 15:47

is naka really that bad?

I guess that depends on how you rate Rosberg, but you'd have to rate him above Alonso to consider Kazuki a decent F1 driver, even Piquet scored points fairly consistently in the R28.

Not scoring a point in what perhaps has been the 3rd-5th best car in 10 races, not being close to your teammate in any of the races, not even when he screws up badly, is IMO not nearly good enough. He seems to be a nice guy who works really hard but he just isn't F1 material and I'm tired of seeing a Williams getting beat by BMWs and Force Indias while the other one is challenging for podiums.

I'd rather have Cosworth as Williams engine supplier than Nakajima as a driver, however with the new price restrictions for engines they should be able to afford Toyota power without him.

#10 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,697 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 August 2009 - 15:48

I guess that depends on how you rate Rosberg, but you'd have to rate him above Alonso to consider Kazuki a decent F1 driver, even Piquet scored points fairly consistently in the R28.

Not scoring a point in what perhaps has been the 3rd-5th best car in 10 races, not being close to your teammate in any of the races, not even when he screws up badly, is IMO not nearly good enough. He seems to be a nice guy who works really hard but he just isn't F1 material and I'm tired of seeing a Williams getting beat by BMWs and Force Indias while the other one is challenging for podiums.

I'd rather have Cosworth as Williams engine supplier than Nakajima as a driver, however with the new price restrictions for engines they should be able to afford Toyota power without him.

I agree, hope the Hulk gets the drive either after the GP2 season or in 2010.

#11 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,626 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 03 August 2009 - 17:46

I was thinking lately about how remarkable the playing field is at the mo. We have three word champions, and will definitely have a fourth this season. There are twelve (!!) race winners in the current field.

Not only that, but the pace between teams has never been closer in F1 history.

The competition in F1 right now is awesome, its just a shame that its so hard to overtake, cuz the racing itself doesn't show it.

#12 GerardF1

GerardF1
  • Member

  • 693 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 03 August 2009 - 20:25

To call this a "golden age" is a bit premature. The last few years were close because the rules had been stable for so long. Even the slower teams were getting to within 1%, or less, of the faster teams times.

Now we have a new rule set and we have two "upstarts" at the front, with McLaren & Renault starting to catch up. Brawn is dropping back having apparently "shot their wad". Red Bull adapted fastest and best - and is probably the team to beat.

If it continues for a couple more seasons then we can discuss a "golden age" but right now circumstances have just fallen into place

Edited by GerardF1, 03 August 2009 - 20:25.


#13 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 9,810 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 August 2009 - 23:08

is naka really that bad?


Pretty bad compared to the rest of the field. But about 30 times better than Ide, Yamamoto, or even his dad, who despite occasionally showing talent, most often had differences to Senna, Piquet, Alesi and Modena that needed calendars to be measured.

#14 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 03 August 2009 - 23:14

I think with Piquet gone the grid is looking much better. Now if they can get rid of Naka and slot in a decent pedaler in the 2 williams things might get even better. I m still convinced Rosberg (and by extension Williams) are underperforming this season because there is 0 intrateam pressure.

#15 gerry nassar

gerry nassar
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,880 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 04 August 2009 - 00:48

I still think that Williams would be on the podium regularily and perhaps won a race or two this season had one of Alonso, Hamilton, Raikkonen, Kubica, Massa, Vettel, Button or Webber been driving it.

#16 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 04 August 2009 - 20:13

The depth now just underlines how weak the field was in the joke years from 1994-2004

Edited by Kenaltgr, 04 August 2009 - 20:14.


#17 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,572 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 04 August 2009 - 20:19

..or, possibly, what a freak of nature one German driver was?

#18 Viktor

Viktor
  • Member

  • 3,392 posts
  • Joined: February 99

Posted 04 August 2009 - 20:30

The depth now just underlines how weak the field was in the joke years from 1994-2004

Yes, I remember the bad years of Button, Fisichella, Alonso, Webber, Kimi, Massa, Trulli, Heidfeld, Barrichello and Schumacher :)

/Viktor

#19 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,496 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 August 2009 - 21:13

Hoping I'm not veering off topic but I cannot help but think a small part of Schu's reasoning for a comeback is to see how he rates against:
Kimi - Schu was unwilling to partner with him for 2007 and opted to leave. It would be sweet justice for him if he could show him up.
Nando - Schu lost out to the WDC twice against him.
Hamilton - Schu never got the chance to really race against him.



I am willing to bet that, of course, the IF factor, plays in.. If Bridgestone had produced a tyre that was equal to the Michelin in 2005, I believe Schu would be the Champion. 2006... Same thing for engine failure in Suzuka. He would have been Champion.

Alonso is a hell of a driver, I am actually a fan of his driving and skill, but he had some luck in 2005 and 2006, just like any World Champion.

Advertisement

#20 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 04 August 2009 - 21:23

..or, possibly, what a freak of nature one German driver was?



Yes very freaky beating a 40 year old Damon Hill with zero past WDC in the field.

#21 Kenaltgr

Kenaltgr
  • Member

  • 892 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 04 August 2009 - 21:26

I am willing to bet that, of course, the IF factor, plays in.. If Bridgestone had produced a tyre that was equal to the Michelin in 2005, I believe Schu would be the Champion. 2006... Same thing for engine failure in Suzuka. He would have been Champion.

Alonso is a hell of a driver, I am actually a fan of his driving and skill, but he had some luck in 2005 and 2006, just like any World Champion.



The only reason Schumacher was even in the title race by Suzuka was thank to a wheel nut that robbed Alonso of another 10 points. Add another 6 for his engine penalty at Monza. ALonso beat him hands down in 2006 in a slower Renault.

#22 uzi

uzi
  • Member

  • 150 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 21:36

The only reason Schumacher was even in the title race by Suzuka was thank to a wheel nut that robbed Alonso of another 10 points. Add another 6 for his engine penalty at Monza. ALonso beat him hands down in 2006 in a slower Renault.


:lol: Beyond ridiculous! some people see it as excellent come back by Schumacher in the second best car! and robbed off an 8th title by the engine failure!

The fact I guess, is somewhere in between... A close fought championship between two great drivers, an exciting championship...

#23 Neophiliac

Neophiliac
  • Member

  • 279 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 21:55

Yes very freaky beating a 40 year old Damon Hill with zero past WDC in the field.


It's not that. It's that after he beat Damon Hill, the field did not become all that much richer in the number of WDCs and number of winners never got all that high for another decade. That is what's remarkable. There are two interpretations of that: either all other drivers were freakishly bad in that decade or that certain German was freakishly good.

#24 ReAlien

ReAlien
  • Member

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 22:05

I am willing to bet that, of course, the IF factor, plays in.. If Bridgestone had produced a tyre that was equal to the Michelin in 2005, I believe Schu would be the Champion. 2006... Same thing for engine failure in Suzuka. He would have been Champion.

What about Mika's and Kimi's sagas of technical failures while driving exactly against Schumi?

Edited by ReAlien, 04 August 2009 - 22:06.


#25 pitmonster

pitmonster
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 22:22

I'd rather have Cosworth as Williams engine supplier than Nakajima as a driver, however with the new price restrictions for engines they should be able to afford Toyota power without him.

But would Toyota be willing to supply without Kazuki in the car?


#26 pitmonster

pitmonster
  • Member

  • 30 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 22:25

Pretty bad compared to the rest of the field. But about 30 times better than Ide, Yamamoto, or even his dad, who despite occasionally showing talent, most often had differences to Senna, Piquet, Alesi and Modena that needed calendars to be measured.

Nakajima Sr. managed a fastest lap once (Australia '89, in the wet), but some of his shunts and spins were epic.

#27 Pegaso

Pegaso
  • Member

  • 512 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 23:09

Nakajima was faster than Alonso during the Brazilian GP of 2007 while the Spaniard was fighting for a title with the full support of the McLaren team and Ron Dennis in particular behind him, so he can't be that bad. :)

Edited by Pegaso, 04 August 2009 - 23:10.


#28 icecream_man

icecream_man
  • Member

  • 1,031 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 23:16

There's certainly a decent number of good drivers that's for sure (oh damn, did I just say "for sure" ? :rolleyes: )

Now all we need is for them to get the regulations sorted and some proper tracks back and it'll be awesome.

#29 BlackCat

BlackCat
  • Member

  • 807 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 04 August 2009 - 23:24

what surprises me most is that with twelve race winners on the grid some persons still consider Heidfeld as top ten material :confused:

#30 Yellowmc

Yellowmc
  • Member

  • 1,916 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 August 2009 - 23:26

One of those race winners is Fisichella and another is Barrichello. Those people do have a leg to stand on.

#31 Brawn BGP 001

Brawn BGP 001
  • Member

  • 2,697 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 04 August 2009 - 23:39

One of those race winners is Fisichella and another is Barrichello. Those people do have a leg to stand on.

If Fisichella does not have a leg to stand on, god knows what Sutil has to support him.

#32 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 03:33

It's not that. It's that after he beat Damon Hill, the field did not become all that much richer in the number of WDCs and number of winners never got all that high for another decade. That is what's remarkable. There are two interpretations of that: either all other drivers were freakishly bad in that decade or that certain German was freakishly good.


The era from 1994-2001 was one of the weakest in modern history imo. There was Schumacher and then there was the rest, and its not just because Schumacher was so good. Lets look at his rivals over that period.

David Coulthard? An inexperienced david coulthard mind you. At his best he was good. Most of the time he was incompetent.
Damon Hill, a good driver but thats it, who didnt even get into F1 until his 30s.
Eddie Irvine, nothing special
Rubens nothing special
Mika, the best of the lot back then, a fast but a guy who took almost 100 gps to win a single race.
Berger, good but a number 2 as proven by his time next to senna.
Alesi, no better than berger.
Frentzen, weak and fragile.
Herbert, and other assorted Schumacher team mates ect ect.

And thats about it. None of these drivers stood out as super stars compared to anyone, let alone Schumacher. If you removed Schumacher which drivers would have stood out among the ones I listed? None right?

It was just a weak era because the natural course had been disrupted by Senna's death. He should have kept Michael honest for another few years. Because of this disruption in the natural order, Michael lucked in and was able to profit from beating up on so many meagre talents (compared to his) and his record reflects that.

He is very lucky that he raced the majority of his career without a truely great rival, like Alonso, who immediately ended Michaels domination the moment he got his hands on quality machinery. If Lewis or Alonso would have been around from 94, Michaels record would only be 50% of what it is.

Was there ever another time in history when someone of Michaels talents never had a comparable rival for so long?

#33 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 37,654 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 05 August 2009 - 06:03

If Schumacher races in Brazil and the world championship is decided in the race before it, we would have 5 world champions driving that race! Very amazing. We have more race winners than non winners.

Add to that that every team has won a race in the last 6 years, except Toyota.

OTOH you have someone like Ralf Schumacher who was winning in F1 who is now struggling to beat Susie Stoddart in DTM. In a newer car.

#34 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,867 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 06:16

some people go well in different catagories, mcnish was decent in f1, but hes mighty in sportscars, for example, schumi was/is? great in a f1 car, but other cars he is "only" very good

i think the cars being so refined has brought the field closer together too.

and didnt nakajima run better last year ?

#35 icecream_man

icecream_man
  • Member

  • 1,031 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 06:21

It was just a weak era because the natural course had been disrupted by Senna's death. He should have kept Michael honest for another few years. Because of this disruption in the natural order, Michael lucked in and was able to profit from beating up on so many meagre talents (compared to his) and his record reflects that.


I'd have to disagree with you there, Senna was starting to lose it in his last few races, he was making some very amateurish mistakes (like running into the back of someone on the approach to a corner as if he'd simply forgotten to brake being 1 particular incident that I remember clearly, but there were others too)

Indications were that he was past his best


#36 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 07:00

Guys the only reason it seems so close these days is the engine freeze and all the other restrictions. Look at the qualifying times there's barely a second between them. Stop kidding yourselves that suddenly the drivers are all amazing compared to 5 years ago.

#37 lustigson

lustigson
  • Member

  • 4,783 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 05 August 2009 - 07:32

Interestingly, it's not just the overall quality of the drivers, but the cars are quite evenly matched, too. I've been following F1 for almost 20 years, now, and I don't remember all cars practicing within some 2 seconds off the fastest one.

To give an example: in the 2nd practice session at Hungary, apart from debutant Jaime Alguersuari, all cars were within 1.097 seconds off the pace of Lewis Hamilton. That's simply incredible.

#38 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 08:26

I'd have to disagree with you there, Senna was starting to lose it in his last few races, he was making some very amateurish mistakes (like running into the back of someone on the approach to a corner as if he'd simply forgotten to brake being 1 particular incident that I remember clearly, but there were others too)

Indications were that he was past his best

I agree but he was still significantly better than Hill and Coulthard, and JV.

#39 howardt

howardt
  • Member

  • 2,102 posts
  • Joined: February 02

Posted 05 August 2009 - 08:36

What makes the season so impressive is how close the cars are. The whle field is sometime separated by only 1-2 seconds. Ten years ago we had a 107% rule to exclude the slowies from the grid because they were a liability.

And with such a close field, it only takes a small slip for a "big" team to mess up and end up at or near the back of the grid, as BMW and Toyota and Ferrari and Mclaren and Renault have done this year. It could be either a setup problem, or a "that time is good enough to get us through Q1, let's start readying for Q2" complacency.

Too early for a 'golden era' though. We've got some new teams starting next year, they may struggle to be on the same pace.

Advertisement

#40 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 9,338 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 05 August 2009 - 08:47

I agree, the field has been bloody good the past 2 years or so. One particular good point is that there's no traditional paydrivers - yes there's the likes of Sutil paying for a place, but no really shit driver that nobody would sign if not for the money. We were used to have that kind of characters in the F1 grids for a very long time.


This is the by product of having smaller grids. Smaller grids = quality. I don't get all these people hankering after 30 car grids. In the days of 30 car grids you'd never see the back 10 cars unless they were being lapped, which was fairly often!

#41 LB

LB
  • Member

  • 12,634 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 05 August 2009 - 08:50

One of those race winners is Fisichella and another is Barrichello. Those people do have a leg to stand on.


Then theres Trulli, Kovaleinen, Kubica, Webber with a grand total of four wins between them. at least Fisi and Barrichello are multiple winners

Button only had one until having the dominant car this year too

Who is left well the three world champions Raikkonen, Hamilton and Alonso, The probably should be world champ had Ferrari not made a mess of it Massa and Vettel who I think we all agree is a bit good!


Heidfeld does have 8 second places!!



#42 ReAlien

ReAlien
  • Member

  • 165 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:16

The era from 1994-2001 was one of the weakest in modern history imo. There was Schumacher and then there was the rest, and its not just because Schumacher was so good. Lets look at his rivals over that period.

Mika, the best of the lot back then, a fast but a guy who took almost 100 gps to win a single race.


Strange logic you've got here - if a driver wasn't able to get into better cars for a long time in his career it makes him inferior to those who were lucky to get to the best team immediately? Mika was fully fledged rival to Schumi and even the German admits that. Schumi was just a bit luckier and more unfair in his career - that's all.


#43 sensible

sensible
  • Member

  • 1,893 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 05 August 2009 - 10:26

The era from 1994-2001 was one of the weakest in modern history imo. There was Schumacher and then there was the rest, and its not just because Schumacher was so good. Lets look at his rivals over that period.

David Coulthard? An inexperienced david coulthard mind you. At his best he was good. Most of the time he was incompetent.
Damon Hill, a good driver but thats it, who didnt even get into F1 until his 30s.
Eddie Irvine, nothing special
Rubens nothing special
Mika, the best of the lot back then, a fast but a guy who took almost 100 gps to win a single race.
Berger, good but a number 2 as proven by his time next to senna.
Alesi, no better than berger.
Frentzen, weak and fragile.
Herbert, and other assorted Schumacher team mates ect ect.

And thats about it. None of these drivers stood out as super stars compared to anyone, let alone Schumacher. If you removed Schumacher which drivers would have stood out among the ones I listed? None right?

It was just a weak era because the natural course had been disrupted by Senna's death. He should have kept Michael honest for another few years. Because of this disruption in the natural order, Michael lucked in and was able to profit from beating up on so many meagre talents (compared to his) and his record reflects that.

He is very lucky that he raced the majority of his career without a truely great rival, like Alonso, who immediately ended Michaels domination the moment he got his hands on quality machinery. If Lewis or Alonso would have been around from 94, Michaels record would only be 50% of what it is.

Was there ever another time in history when someone of Michaels talents never had a comparable rival for so long?

what a pile of cack. Cant you see the contradictions in what you wrote? If you took michael out of the scenario you described, then you'd have exactly the situation you have now - ie lots of drivers winning. The two scenarios may have been because
1. everyone was crap then, everyone is good now
2. ms was way better than a bunch of normal drivers then who are equivalentto the normal drivers now

or other variants. The point is you cannot say which wasthe case, can you? Using your pathetic alonso comparisson by the way is the same as saying that MS in his first full year was better than Senna at his peak because he beat him in the championship. very funny.

ps you missed out villeneuve who, whatever his faults, was actually a wdc.
you also (somewhat strangely) miss out the years in which MS won 3 of his titles.



#44 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 04:04

Strange logic you've got here - if a driver wasn't able to get into better cars for a long time in his career it makes him inferior to those who were lucky to get to the best team immediately? Mika was fully fledged rival to Schumi and even the German admits that. Schumi was just a bit luckier and more unfair in his career - that's all.

Unable to get into a better car? Mika drove a Mclaren for all those years, a team with a massive budget and race winning pedigree. If he was anything special he would have scrapped at least a win or two during that time.

#45 fanboy

fanboy
  • Member

  • 999 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 05:16

what a pile of cack. Cant you see the contradictions in what you wrote? If you took michael out of the scenario you described, then you'd have exactly the situation you have now - ie lots of drivers winning. The two scenarios may have been because
1. everyone was crap then, everyone is good now
2. ms was way better than a bunch of normal drivers then who are equivalentto the normal drivers now

or other variants. The point is you cannot say which wasthe case, can you? Using your pathetic alonso comparisson by the way is the same as saying that MS in his first full year was better than Senna at his peak because he beat him in the championship. very funny.


I dont see a contradiction. I said even without Michael there were no stand out superstars in the previous era, while in this era there definately are two stand out superstars, and if you dont know who they are then you are not qualified to be offering any analysis of F1. I wasnt implying Alonso was better than Schumacher, just that he was a very strong rival, the type Michael lacked for a large part of his career.

ps you missed out villeneuve who, whatever his faults, was actually a wdc.
you also (somewhat strangely) miss out the years in which MS won 3 of his titles.

Yeh your right. I forgot about montoya, ralf and JV. All good drivers but were ultimately kicked out of F1 by their early 30s. Ralf and Montoya in particular were still in their primes.

Edited by fanboy, 06 August 2009 - 05:16.


#46 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 3,756 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 06 August 2009 - 06:06

Montoya didnt get kicked out - he walked. Shame, as he was a waste of raw talent.

Had Williams not imploded after 97 JV could have been a multiple WDC. Despite his pathetic later seasons, he was fast on his day.

Mika was unlucky not to be a 3 time WDC.

Ralf was and still is a joke who milked the last name really well.

#47 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 06 August 2009 - 07:08

Montoya didnt get kicked out - he walked. Shame, as he was a waste of raw talent.

Had Williams not imploded after 97 JV could have been a multiple WDC. Despite his pathetic later seasons, he was fast on his day.

Mika was unlucky not to be a 3 time WDC.


Mika was fortunate Schumacher broke his leg in 1999.

#48 Schuperman

Schuperman
  • Member

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 06 August 2009 - 07:31

The era from 1994-2001 was one of the weakest in modern history imo. There was Schumacher and then there was the rest, and its not just because Schumacher was so good. Lets look at his rivals over that period.


Why don't you extent the period from 1994-2008?

Judging how Massa fared very well in 2007 & 2008, MS could have bagged another 2 WDCs in those two years.


#49 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:28

Ralf was and still is a joke who milked the last name really well.



That's unfair.
After his big accident Ralf was never the same again, but before, while no Michael, he was a damn fine driver, as fast as Montoya.

Edited by Paolo, 06 August 2009 - 09:28.


#50 Tenmantaylor

Tenmantaylor
  • Member

  • 8,353 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 06 August 2009 - 09:53

That's unfair.
After his big accident Ralf was never the same again, but before, while no Michael, he was a damn fine driver, as fast as Montoya.


Agreed.