46 replies to this topic

[baddog]

I thought this was interesting, particularly as we approach Johnny's last GP, and given that the subject of Johnny and Michael at Benetton is a subject that has received much comment on the BB in the past. I wonder how closely this mirrors people preconceptions of how things were that year.

From Mark Glendenning's review of 'Schumi' in this weeks atlas issue:

---------------------------------------------------------
"Quite honestly, it was an unfortunate time for Johnny to have joined the team...I believe that if he had been with us in 1994, he would have had a much happier season. The fact was that the car was not as good as we would have liked, and when faced with those circumstances, it's difficult to be fair about the responses you have to make to try and sort out the car. Given the situation we were in, I think it was proper that we used Michael to try and solve the problem as quickly as possible. He had been driving for us for four years, he was the quicker driver and certainly the one with the most experience.'

'In fairness to Johnny, the comments he made about the car were correct. It's not the we didn't believe him; we were simply unable to address the things which troubled Johnny as quickly as we should have done, because those problems in some ways did not trouble Michael. Confidence level in the car was never a problem for Michael, which meant that there were other things that we could get on with sorting out. Giving Johnny confidence in the car was not always our highest priority." (pp. 35-36.)
---------------------------------------------------------

[JayWay]

"The atmosphere was OK when I joined Benetton," Herbert says today, "but I remember saying that I was hoping to fight for the World Championship, and then I read that Michael [Schumacher] said he hoped I wasn't going to get political. I can't remember exactly what the words were but it was almost as if he thought I'd stop him being Champion. He didn't say anything to me, it was in an article, maybe a week later. Then I knew things were difficult.

"Then, on our first day in Argentina - a Thursday, because it was a new track for us - I was about two thousandths quicker than Michael. On the way back to the hotel, he said to me, 'well, I have a secret about my driving and you probably have secrets about yours, maybe you don't want to see what I do and I don't want to see what you do'. Next day, when I got to the track, they said I wasn't allowed to see the data. So that made it difficult and, from that point on, it wasn't really fair."

Johnny remains tight-lipped about the lack of support from team boss Flavio Briatore in 1995, but, even though he regards Michael Schumacher as his most difficult teammate in F1, Johnny says he holds no grudges against the German ace.

"He never wanted anyone to have a fair crack against him," he says. "That's something I'd never be happy with, personally. I always think that if you have 50:50 in the team, then the best guy wins. Unfortunately, that was never the case with Michael from early on. That's the way he is. I've nothing against him - it's the team that has to control that situation."


Interesting, very interesting

[baddog]

It does rather seem that Johnny and 'the team' as represented by Ross, have rather different views of the way things were, or more the reasons for things being the way they were.

Shaun

[JayWay]

I'll take Johnny's word over theres thank you.

Nothing against Ross, or Michael, but that little circle of friends is very political, just not trustable.

Why would Johnny lie? Hes an honest, good hearted person. He has no reputation of being a liar.

But I guess Schumacher can't be wrong.

[baddog]

Im sorry, I said what exactly? I posted this without opinion, as I merely think its an interesting contrast in points of view of the same events.

I, unlike you, wont choose to decide that one or other party are liars. Im quite sure both of them are saying it how it seemed from their point of view. To Johnny he seemed to be being shut out because he was a threat to Michael. to Ross getting Johnny over his understandable problems with the car represented too much work when they had a championship to win. those views can coexist without anyone lying.

Seems I Cant win with some people

Shaun

[JayWay]

When the hell did I mention you? Are you part of the political circle?

[baddog]

hehe sorry.. overly touchy there, it was your comment 'But I guess Schumacher can't be wrong.' that I thought was aimed at me

the rest of what I said stands though, I dont think ANYONE concerned is lying, just seeing things from their own angle

Shaun

[Todd]

I'll say it. Herbert lied to prolong his career. Since he left Benetton, comparisons with Barrichello, Irvine, and, for God's sake, Alesi have shown that Herbert really is just as bad as he looked next to Michael. Add the gap from Michael back to Irvine to the gap from Irvine back to Herbert and you have something approaching the gap from Michael to Herbert at Benetton. This, despite the fact that Herbert was the Stewart-Jaguar driver with the long-established relationship with his team. Comparisons using Barrichello as the yardstick give the same results. Eddie got less testing at Ferrari, but he never complained for lack of access to Michael's data.

[Merlin]

JJ Lehto drove for Benetton in ´94 and he also commented something about the situation in Benetton. He said that there were more buttons in Michaels steering wheel and when he asked the mechanics about the purpose of those buttons, the mechanics told him to just drive and not bother himself with details. Doesn't sound fair to me.

[karlth]

We shouldn't be to hard on Herbert, afterall he was the first driver to compete effectively against Frentzen during his Sauber days. Something a lot of "better" drivers were unable to do.

[Damop]

Johnny should stick to fellating himself and not the press. JH is decent, but he isn't even in the league of EI or RB, let alone MS. The same thing would have happened to him if he were at McLaren - MH would dominate him even more than he does with DC.

[Megatron]

It is obvious that Benetton was only a team Schumacher outfit in 1994 and 1995. The only time that Herbert ever looked good was when Micheal fell out.

The 1995 car was an areodynamic nightmare if it didn't suit your style. Schumacher loved the car, but Herbert hated it. When Alesi and Berger tested it, they hated it as much as Herbert. I remember Berger completely wrote off 3 cars in testing before the 1996 season with the 96 which was basically following the same path as the 1995 car.

I don't think that Herbert could beat Micheal on his best day, but at the same time Herbert never really got a fair chance at Benetton. (and for that matter, neither did Lettho or Verstappen).

[baddog]

megatron, you are right about the 95 car in all but one thing. you say ms 'loved' the car. in fact he disliked the car intensely and found it hard to drive (the quotes are easy to find on atlas), but was able to work around the problems, something the others failed to do. Just because he was quick in it doesn tmean he liked it.

Shaun

[Megatron]

Actually, perhaps I should have reworded it "got by". Yes, I seem to remember MS not talking that kindly, particuarlly at the season opener in Brazil.

To me, the 1995-1997 period was where MS drove some of his best races, because the cars he was in were challenging.

Opps...

[The Swerve]

baddog, I'm not quite sure that's what he said. I think he said it was a very, very hard car to drive but if you were able to run on the edge then it was very quick too.

I don't think he said he liked it particularly or disliked it. It seemed to suit him okay.

[baddog]

swerve, Im fairly sure he said he disliked it or words to that effect but yes, the real point is that he found it hard to drive but capable of being very quick if driven right.

Shaun

[Ross Stonefeld]

The Driver/Engineer relationship is absolutely key in racing. It comes down to comfort vs speed. The engineer needs to realise that sometimes its better to give the driver a good feeling car that he can get performance out of, than a fast car he cant get on top of. At the same time the driver needs to trust the engineer at times and take a fast car over af un car. It's when its not a balanced relationship that people get messed up.

If Benetton werent going to help out Johnny, why didnt they just get Taki Inoue to fill the second seat.

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec International

The Herbert article was also written by the guy who runs his webpage and knows him personally. Keep that in mind when you read it, if only for reference[p][Edited by Ross Stonefeld on 10-18-2000]

[baddog]

ross, true, but equally johnny was just as culpable in failing to work hard enough on getting on top of what WAS available and from that platform tried to get what he wanted. If he was focused on the old losing drivers 'find someone else to blame' rather than 'fix my own problem before blaming others' he might be to blame for his own troubles. Certainly his rgular isinuations that he was actually better than MS but wasnt allowed to be come across a little like a man fooling himself.

Shaun

[JayWay]

I question whether an apposing opinion would have been presented had I said that Brawn said it was Herberts inabilty. I don't think you would have chimed in saying "Herbert said this though".

Sorry

[baddog]

I dont follow you jayway.. are you saying if you had posted what I did I(or someone else) wouldnt have posted what you did? in fact I read the atlas johnny interview after the book review, and nearly included just the same section in my post, but decided it was actually just the old comments that Id read on the BB many times so left it out as rosses comments that I hadnt seen before were what seemed interesting.

Shaun

[JayWay]

Scenari:

JayWay: Ross Brawn said that Johnny Herbert wasn't worth dealing with.

Baddog:Well I heard Johnny say that he was faster then Schumacher and then Schumacher got scared and pulled access to his telementry.

*End scenario*

I can't see that happening.

[DangerMouse]

Something Senna said during 1994 seems to back JHs story up as well....

"It is not the first time that a Schumacher / Ross Brawn car has raised suspicion over traction control. Ayrton Senna said after retiring and watching the 1994 Aida race in Japan, that there were two very different Benetton’s out on the circuit. Lets hope this isn’t a repeat of the 1994 fiasco."

Todd, I don't know why you hate JH so much, to call him a liar is absurd – he has never done anything under-hand in his whole career – unlike a certain German driver.

JH has proven time and time again that when he is happy with the car he's quick, when he finally got hold of the Stewart toward the end of the season he beat Barrichello comprehensively, At Sauber he slaughter Alesi's race pace until Alesi made his politics felt.
He Slaughtered Panis at Legier, he out-qualified Mika Hakkenin 9-7 at Lotus (Mika did better in the races) he out qualified his team-mates 16-0 in 1997 at Sauber and won most of the points. You seem to remember whatever it suits you to support your theory that JH is slow, slow he certainly isn’t.

JH is a superb driver, since his crash he has lost the ability to overdrive a car - something I agree with. But given the support and time to set the car as he likes it he is quick. Again, in the last 4 races he's been quicker than Eddie at race pace. (and even overtaken him for position on 2 or 3 occasions.) JH deserves a decent drive as a equal #1 driver - something he has never had.

The fact that in 94 after the original test when JH was quicker than Michael (and he was on old tyres against Michaels new ones) provoked MS to ban JH from using his set-ups or data (Michael still had full access to Johnnys BTW) this shows that JH was something Schumacher feared. The act of a coward. Most other WDC winning drivers have had to fight the field *and* his team-mate to win the title – Scumacher hasn’t – what a hero.

[Todd]

Originally posted by DangerMouse
Something Senna said during 1994 seems to back JHs story up as well....

"It is not the first time that a Schumacher / Ross Brawn car has raised suspicion over traction control. Ayrton Senna said after retiring and watching the 1994 Aida race in Japan, that there were two very different Benetton’s out on the circuit. Lets hope this isn’t a repeat of the 1994 fiasco."

I have a few problems with this quote. How could Benetton have "repeated the 1994 fiasco" in 1994? If you are talking about 1995, how did a very dead Senna have a comment to make? Was this story reported to you by Elvis Presley? What does anything that happened in 1994 have to do with Herbert's performance at Benetton? He didn't drive for them in 1994. He did drive for them in 1989, so it isn't like his true ability level was a mystery to Benetton. I have seen Senna accused of making this traction control excuse. It is too bad that he showed that sort of character when he met his match.

Originally posted by DangerMouse
Todd, I don't know why you hate JH so much, to call him a liar is absurd – he has never done anything under-hand in his whole career – unlike a certain German driver.

I don't hate him, but he is an excuse-making whiner. He also gets the benefit of the doubt in some questionable situations. I remember a collision with Ralf when they were converging on a chicane. Ralf had passed Herbert and Ralf's rear tire hit Johnny's front tire when Ralf turned into the chicane. Absurdly, Ralf was criticized for not giving Herbert room. Herbert gave interviews saying Ralf was at fault. This was in Monza '97, a season where the biggest complaint of the day was a lack of passsing. Herbert's sense of self couldn't handle the reality that he had been passed by a Goodyear-shod rookie in a no passing year. So he never yielded the line and crashed them both needlessly. I wouldn't be as unforgiving about it, but the British commentators' unanimous disregard for reality in assessing blame made me sick. That is always the way with Herbert's supporters. There is no reality based way of thinking that:

Originally posted by DangerMouse
JH is a superb driver,.... JH deserves a decent drive as a equal #1 driver - something he has never had.

He certainly had the team's focus at Sauber, but he did nothing to retain it. It may not have been your idea of a decent drive, but Benetton certainly knew what he merited, and they replaced him with Berger at a huge financial cost.

Originally posted by DangerMouse
The fact that in 94 after the original test when JH was quicker than Michael (and he was on old tyres against Michaels new ones) provoked MS to ban JH from using his set-ups or data (Michael still had full access to Johnnys BTW) this shows that JH was something Schumacher feared. The act of a coward. Most other WDC winning drivers have had to fight the field *and* his team-mate to win the title – Scumacher hasn’t – what a hero.

This mythical test gets beaten to death. First of all, one test doesn't prove anything. 3 World Driving Championships does. Second of all, even Herbert doesn't claim that Michael wanted to see his data. He said that both drivers had secrets and should keep them. Third of all, Herbert's problems were biggest when he had to use Schumacher's set ups. I don't know why you think he is entitled to Schumacher's tools in an effort to prove who is better, but Johnny shouldn't needthe use of Schumacher's set up brilliance and a digital trace of Schumacher's driving technique, if Herbert were really better, as he claimed, THE LIAR.

Why don't I respect Herbert's character? He lied and made excuses when he should have kept his mouth shut. Why don't I respect his driving? Just look at his record. There was a time when I thought that Herbert could have done more with the B196 than Alesi and Berger did. I have seen the error in my ways though.

[DangerMouse]

"It is not the first time that a Schumacher / Ross Brawn car has raised suspicion over traction control. Ayrton Senna said after retiring and watching the 1994 Aida race in Japan, that there were two very different Benetton’s out on the circuit. Lets hope this isn’t a repeat of the 1994 fiasco."
That was a post in a f1-news article in 97 after Ferrari were caught running “Throttle control”

” what did anything that happened in 1994 have to do with Herbert's performance at Benetton? He didn't drive for them in 1994.”
He drove for Benetton in the last two races of 94 that’s when the test happened. Flav gave him a drive at Ligier When Lotus folded. He immediately outperformed the highly respected Panis, Flav switched JH to Benetton.

Ralf overtook JH at 200 MPH and then pulled back across before completing his pass forcing JH off the track, a few drivers at the time raised this at the GPDA and RS received a quiet word in the ear about it.
“He certainly had the team's focus at Sauber, but he did nothing to retain it. It may not have been your idea of a decent drive, but Benetton certainly knew what he merited, and they replaced him with Berger at a huge financial cost. “
Dropping Herbert for 96 probably had more to do with the legal action Collins/Herbert took out against Benetton re the telemetry thing which was settled out of court. Sauber’s performance peaked during the years when JH was the #1, When Alesi appeared they immediately scored the least amount of point EVER in their F1 career and haven’t recovered since – looks like Prost have gone the same way care of Alesi – what a talent.

”This mythical test gets beaten to death. First of all, one test doesn't prove anything. 3 World Driving Championships does. Second of all, even Herbert doesn't claim that Michael wanted to see his data. He said that both drivers had secrets and should keep them. Third of all, Herbert's problems were biggest when he had to use Schumacher's set ups. I don't know why you think he is entitled to Schumacher's tools in an effort to prove who is better, but Johnny shouldn't needthe use of Schumacher's set up brilliance and a digital trace of Schumacher's driving technique, if Herbert were really better, as he claimed, THE LIAR.”


Herbert cannot handle a tail happy car due to his late turn in technique he uses to negate his lack or braking feel by nature of not having an ankle. In 95 Herbert had TWO (yes TWO) days testing all year and had to turn up at a GP, set-up and drive a car tailored for a driving characteristic Herbert cannot handle – he still won two races.

”Why don't I respect Herbert's character? He lied and made excuses when he should have kept his mouth shut. Why don't I respect his driving? Just look at his record. There was a time when I thought that Herbert could have done more with the B196 than Alesi and Berger did. I have seen the error in my ways though.”


The B196 was a heavily redesigned car at Bergers insistance – Herbert won more races in the B195 than Berger AND Alesi did in the (according to Berger) better 196 that puts your little theory to rest. If Herbert is lying why don’t the parties involved at the very least comment, if not sue?

[Ripples]

Originally posted by DangerMouse


” what did anything that happened in 1994 have to do with Herbert's performance at Benetton? He didn't drive for them in 1994.”
He drove for Benetton in the last two races of 94 that’s when the test happened. Flav gave him a drive at Ligier When Lotus folded. He immediately outperformed the highly respected Panis, Flav switched JH to Benetton.

Senna kinda died at the start of 1994. Or more precisely, on the third round of the season. It's very widely documented, you know: Brazilian Hero, killed in a high speed accident on the Imola circuit and all that. I'm sure it made the headlines in your area too

[Todd]

Originally posted by DangerMouse
Herbert cannot handle a tail happy car due to his late turn in technique he uses to negate his lack or braking feel by nature of not having an ankle. In 95 Herbert had TWO (yes TWO) days testing all year and had to turn up at a GP, set-up and drive a car tailored for a driving characteristic Herbert cannot handle – he still won two races.

First point: If Herbert couldn't use a tail happy car, and the B195, as raced by Michael Schumacher, certainly was one, then why did you say that he wasn't allowed access to Michael's setups? It wasn't true and it wouldn't have hurt him if it were.

Second point: Herbert's wins were less than impressive. At Monza, he had to wait for the retirements of both Williams, both Ferraris, and his teammate. Being the 6th fastest guy on the track in the B195 doesn't impress me. Only the two Williams driving buffoons made errors, so it wasn't the tricky conditions that he conquered to win that race. His other win was in Silverstone. After Damon took himself and Michael Schumacher out of a battle that was going on 45 seconds up the road from Herbert, all Herbert had to do was wait for David Coulthard to get black flagged out of his way. What a heroic drive. (you may not realize this, but nobody outside the UK was really impressed by the driver of the second best car of the year inheriting two wins when the 3 drivers with comparable cars were all removed from the track ahead of him.

Originally posted by DangerMouse
The B196 was a heavily redesigned car at Bergers insistance – Herbert won more races in the B195 than Berger AND Alesi did in the (according to Berger) better 196 that puts your little theory to rest. If Herbert is lying why don’t the parties involved at the very least comment, if not sue?

If Berger or Alesi had ever had the good fortune of both Williams drivers taking themselves out of a race and Schumacher retiring too, either of them were often well placed to win in Herbert's '95 style. Monaco was the only race where that happened. Unfortunately, Alesi and Berger fell to mechanical problems in that race. Meanwhile, Johnny Herbert was beaten by Panis in a Ligier.

Do you really wonder why Walkinshaw, Brawn, and Briatore didn't sue Herbert? Herbert's story matters only to his fans and his mother. Nobody else likes an excuse. How could the people involved show damages? They're all more successful than Herbert, and none were adversely effected by Herbert's stories. Surprisingly enough, your esteem is positively valueless in this case. Herbert only hurt himself. He is lucky that anyone would hire him after he bit the hand that fed him. Although you chose to ignore it, one of the first posts in this thread has a quote from a Benetton perspective. Herbert wasn't quick enough and his opinion wasn't valued. End of story.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Todd,

Ralf drove Johnny O off the track at Monza on the straight at near top speed, it had nothing to do with turning for the corner.

At Monza 95 David Zoomtard retired with wheel bearing failure at the second chicane.

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec International

[Todd]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Todd,

Ralf drove Johnny O off the track at Monza on the straight at near top speed, it had nothing to do with turning for the corner.

At Monza 95 David Zoomtard retired with wheel bearing failure at the second chicane.

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec International

Take a look at the video from Ralf and Herbert's crash. Do you think Ralf just wanted to experience a new kind of shunt? Herbert was trying to make him miss the chicane. May your rookie efforts at driving be plagued by crashes caused by more experienced drivers. And may the commentators all blame you for being an outsider.

At Williams in the mid nineties, wheel bearing failure was just the excuse they gave to protect their fragile drivers' egos. In reality land, it is called spinning off. Just check Forix.

[baddog]

lordy.. whod have thought johnnys past was such a hot topic. given that only one poster I can think of on here would spring to mind as a johnny 'fan' (and fair on you too DM, johnny is a good driver).. you have to wonder if the ret of it has more to do with his erstwhile teammate than him.

I hope you all realise I merely posted the quote because it was something new I hadnt seen before.. Never occurred to me it was especially controversial.

Shaun

and jayway.. not really reasonable to apparently complain about the fact that you dont think I would post exactly what you would.. why the hell should I? after all, how many times have you been seen posting anything that isnt open praise of Jacques? and why should you? that isnt your viewpoint. It isnt even like I posted a slam against johnny, Ive always rather liked him and thought he was better than most give him credit, though perhaps not as good as he thinks he is.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Mr Herbert was on the right side down the straight, Ralf proceeded to slip stream/draft/tow him and pulled to the left to overtake. As Ralf drew along side he prematurely began his maneuver to rejoin the racing line. This resulted in him contacting the front of Herbert's car. When someone attempts to pass you on the inside, and you maintain your position online, taht is NOT forcing them to miss the turn.

Unfortunately Forix isnt the be all end all of what happens in Formula 1. I guess we could say Jean Alesi spun out of the Japanese Grand Prix. Of course he did, his engine blew up the back of the car.

In the two instances of car contact that I have had, both were against drivers of equal experience (one actually had about 1 more race on me). ITS CALLED RACING

Try it sometime, you'll like it.

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec International

[BuzzingHornet]

The reason Herbert wasn't retained at Sauber was Jean Alesi... Sauber were trying to buy a 'name' driver in 1997/8 and they got Jean. A few tantrums were enough to see off Johnny Herbert's chances, like at Silverstone 98 for example...

Herbert is very good, more than a match for most of his team-mates in the race if not in qualifying. Ralf was definitely at fault at Monza, DC DID have wheel-bearing failure at Monza and Michael DID see his arse when JH outpaces him in Argentina. In the race Michael ran a different differential to Johnny and nobody told him 'til after the race...

[Williams]

Steve Matchett makes the following points about Schumacher and Herbert in "The Mechanic's Tale".

1) Michael liked a car which was very stiffly set up (as we all know). Herbert frequently complained about the handling and general performance of the car.

2) Matchett says that he "simply can't believe" that the cars given Schumacher and Herbert were unequal.

3) The car was designed around Schumacher, which Herbert could not adapt to.

4) He says that "Johnny's general disenchantment with Bennetton make me feel both uncomfortable and confused". His failure to do better was not due to any lack of effort on Bennetton's part. Herbert's Bennetton only had one reliabilty fault throughout 1995. Furthermore Herbert had his most successful season with Benetton.

5) When the pressure was on and things were not going well, Johnny's usually cheerful nature would turn to the glum and dispondant, and he would grow frustrated, quiet and a little withdrawn. Schumacher, on the other hand, always remained calm, confident and sure of progress, irrespective of whether the previous laps had been slower than expected. Conversations between Michael and his race engineer, Pat Symonds, always remained constructive.

6) Ross Brawn kept both drivers in the know about the benefits and deficits of the variuous setups tried, but Michael always seemed more able to focus and make the most of the flow of information.

It seems that although the car was biased toward Schumacher, Herbert could have done better in making use of the resources available to him.

[Todd]

Considering Matchett has been pretty up front about his experience with the team in general, I believe him over Johnny Herbert any day. Considering that Herbert hasn't set the world on fire anywhere else, why can't Schumacher detractors just try to diminish Schumacher by saying he beat a driver that stunk? It is an easier argument to support than Herbert's excuses are. Instead, they need to impeach about 125 of their countrymen, who were Herbert's villains at Benetton.

[DangerMouse]

"It seems that although the car was biased toward Schumacher, Herbert could have done better in making use of the resources available to him."
Resources? what resources? Herbert tested twice in the whole season for gods sake isn't anyone listening? Is that equal opportunity?

Todd, not liking a car tailored to Schumachers driving style is completely different to having access to his telemetry. It was tail happy and JH wasn't given the chance to tailor the car to his style. Looking at Bergers huge crashes when he first tried the B195 it seems the car couldn't be altered to handle neutrally - Alesi loved it - that says it all really.

Herberts best season was indeed 95 because that’s the best car he has ever driven setu for him or not - not a surprise.
Even thought JH didn't get a car to his liking or any testing.
Herbert was running in 3rd place in the last race of the season with DC already out, a breakdown meant that the 4 points needed to match DCs total (and so go 3rd in the WDC thanks to more wins) was lost. Benetton won the constructers championship Herbert done his job.

Herbert would turn up for a test where he was supposed to drive and Schumacher would announce he needs the days allotted to Herbert too - Herbert would be left sitting on the pit wall watching Schumacher go round.

Yes with Herberts Benetton wins, the top contenders dropped out - so what? He was still there to pick up the pieces, Herbert wasn’t going to beat Schumi on pace given the circumstances and certainly wasn’t going to beat Hill who was quicker than MS in 95 at race pace anyway (only for Williams to throw race after race away in the pits), JV won a fair few races (and so his title) by nature of other drivers misfortunes doesn't make it any less valid.

Herbert BEAT Schumacher in an inferior Sauber on the same tyres with a year old Ferrari engine in 1997 (at Hungary) do you not think given that given equal equipment and opportunity he would be able to at least put up a fight occasionally in the same car? Of course he would and Schumacher was having none of it.

[Ripples]

Originally posted by DangerMouse
...Hill who was quicker than MS in 95 at race pace anyway ...

[DangerMouse]

Not only did Hill outqualify MS 11/5 Hill usually made the better starts too. ALL of MSs overtaking was done in the pits, the end of 95 races were often Hill re-catching MS after dropping behind in the pits and then climbing all over MS for the remainder of the race or ended up in the gravel trap after MS tried a bit of brake testing.


People often confuse fastest race lap with race pace the two are completly different.

[baddog]

Im sorry DM, but your union jack underpants are over your eyes again. Damons excursions into the gravel in 95 (often accompanied by the benetton he had run into) were the fault of ridiculously optimistic overtaking moves.. and if they'd happened in reverse you'd be screaming for bans.

Yes, theres no doubt that on actual raw speed the DH/Williams package was quicker (though many of the antischumies here would claim the benetton was quicker) but his lack of racecraft and consistency more than compensated for his speed and scuppered his gifted world championship for the second year running.

Shaun

[mtl'78]

Guys, I think its totally irrelevant wether or not Johnny Herbert is "lying" or not. Besides, lying is really about perspective, Herbert may believe what he says, and thus would not be lying...

But Benetton have admittted that they had little to no concern for Herbert's opinions or needs from the team. Therefore, the deck was stacked against him in a way that precluded him from being on equal terms. Debate the validity of that point if you wish, but the fact is Herbert did not get the opportunity that Schumacher got. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the team concentrating on MS, this has been done for ever in F1 and is still bein done today: Zonta, Wurz, Barrichello, all have the deck stacked against them before they sit down to race.

I prefer teams like Maclaren and Williams, that treat both drivers as equals and try to make their cars faster, not faster for one driver, just faster. It's more sporting. The favoring of 1 driver usually makes for a faster rise up the feild, but not as lasting. If Micheal Shumacher (god-forbid) is killed or injured, Ferrari are finished. They would need to practically rebuild the team from scratch. Same for BAR, though with Panis I expect this to change somewhat.

On the other hand, Todd and many others will be only too glad to point out that any monkey could step into the Mac and challenge for the WDC, Coulthard being the proof of this. That strategy promotes continuity, and is a big reason that Maclaren and Williams have surpassed Ferrari in total WC's in less than half the time.

So if I were Johnny, I'd probably feel the same way. He sacrificed, worked hard, and risked his life just as much as Schumacher (or Wurz with Fisi, Zonta with JV) but theirs was/is apparently not worth as much support from the onset...

[Williams]

MTL'78 a lot of the arguments here seem to smack of "poor Johnny, he was discriminated against". Do you think there might have been a reason the team decided to put their effort behind MS ? Teams are not out to shaft drivers, they are out to win, so does it make sense that they would Shaft Herbert for the pure heck of it ? Or did they decide that the best results for the applied effort would come from supporting MS ?

If that seems unfair, well, this is F1 and Johnny is a big boy now.

[mtl'78]

I don't put any malevolance in Benetton, or BAR's attitudes to their respective #2's. It is a lack of concern. "Micheal's (or Jacques or Fisi) is happy so our work is done.." That is the attitude that I'm describing. I don't even think it is wrong, it's just not the way I prefer. So to say that Herbert was "shafted" is not accurate IMO. I think he (and the others mentioned) was "ignored".

[Williams]

Well I guess my argument still applies. If Johnny was being "ignored" there was a reason for it. I'm sure it wasn't because Johnny was the better driver.

[baddog]

mtl

to an extent I think you are right.. what happens is a driver like johnny or ricardo is hired to provide a decent shot at some points/podiums in the second car. of course noone TELLS them they are being hired to make the best use of the number 2 seat.. and often they let their egos overtake their common sense and then when what everyone else knew becomes obvious and the teams main driver is getting all the attention they start to bleat. Its an old story and has happened to teammates of every real top driver. the solution is to BE a top driver.

Shaun

[DangerMouse]

It’s a matter of a level playing field. If MS had another decent team mate that he really had to fight against would he win 1 WDC let alone 3? Graham and Damon Hill proved they could win championships against WHOLE field as did Mika and JV, Prost and Senna, Clark, Stewart this list goes on.

One car teams are banned in F1 as it’s too much of an advantage to poor all resources into one car, but effectively doing this AND having your team-mate actively help you is a huge advantage – something only MS enjoys.

Williams and McLaren only employ these tactics when there is mathmatically little hope for the oher driver to win.
In 1999 had EI started an equal would he now be Ferrari's first WDC? - probably, the race winning position he gave up at Magny Cours to drop back to 6th place in order to give MS an extra point would have secured him the WDC. (as would a podium thorugh Ferrari managing to find 4 tyres in a pit stop.)

The difference with JH against EI and Rubens is they joined knowing what’s in store and signed contracts more or less telling them they are merely a tool to help MS win the WDC. Herbert joined Benetton genuinely thinking he was about to fight for the Championship against MS and may the best driver win.
Don’t forget JH was in a binding Lotus contract for 4 years and most of the top teams were at the time actively seeking him as a driver – he was classed as a top driver and went into Benetton expecting to be treated as such.

The scare Brundle gave MS a few times (by occasionally being quicker in the race (especially in the wet BTW) ) put a stop to that and a team-mate of Schumi hasn’t had a fair crack since.

[Ross Stonefeld]

All these drivers are capable of WC's, they have remarkable junior careers, generally impressive early runs in F1. I dont beleive in this #2 to get the occasional point. I beleive in the Mclaren system of two WC capable cars. That is how you win a WC, by having both your cars in front of the other guy.

Ross Stonefeld
Aztec International

[mtl'78]

Williams, Baddog... I think the question you raise is sort of a "chicken or the egg" kind of unanswerable question, to a certain extent. (sorry for the horrible sentence ;) ) Can you really say Johnny ever had a chance to compete with MS? IMO, no. Did Herbert have the potential to be faster/better than him? ...A big maybe, and I'd say no. One thing is for sure, when a no.2 is treated as such, he has to be something special to overcome it.

Look, If, in 1996 Williams had treated Villeneuve like Bennetton did Herbert, I doubt JV would have gotten the pole at Melbourne and gone on to challenge Hill for the WDC. In fact, it might have totally altered his career and status, perhaps he wouldn't have been WDC at all... who knows. So the opposite effect must be true to a certain extent. Herbert's career was done damage by his status at Benetton. And remember, this is from the onset of the season, pre-season testing, etc. Before they had taken their 1st lap, Herbert was branded #2. he was set up to finish behind Micheal (same for RZ AW etc.).

If you allow me to speculate a little, I'd bet Herbert would have run a lot closer to MS, and perhaps gotten better rides later on, as a result of this. I think at the very least he could have done as well as DC has in similar rides, perhaps even better. He never got the chance. Wurz and Zonta are young, so perhaps they have time to turn their careers around. However, they have been seriously damaged by the lack of support from their teams.

Are they WDC material? sure, in the right car, with the right support, these drivers are capable of a lot. Just look at HHF. Although Williams provided them with equal equippement and technical support, HHF needed something extra that Peter Sauber, and later Eddie Jordan, were able to provide. How else can you explain that HHF did better in the 99 Jordan than in the 97 Williams?

But a top driver is a top driver. Be it Gilles Villeneuve wrestling the support away from WDC Sheckter, Senna agianst Prost, Amazing drivers are somehow able to trancend this phenomenon and "annoint" themselves "team leaders". But you don't need to Senna or Schumacher to win a WDC, or at least be competitive against the best. Roseberg, Hill, even Piquet were never considered the best ever, or even the best of their eras, yet Piquet won 3 titles!

[Williams]

MTL, this is not an accurate comparision, but I see Herbert in sort of the same position as Coulthard today. As soon as he saw that he was never going be able show his potential alonside MS, he should have immediately begun looking for another drive. Even if he took a step backwards, he would ahve been able to show what he could do at a lower level, then moved back up. As tough as it is for DC to give up a great car, he will never be a World Champion in it, just as Herbert could not beat Michael at Benetton.

I guess it goes to show that there is no point in a driver competing above his level. Better to put in a season or two of hard graft at a lower team, where you can get some control of the situation and show your stuff, and learn too, than to beat your head against a Michael Schumacher or a Mika Hakkinen.

It also goes to show that MS was not only a better driver than Herbert, he had much better career management, too. Maybe that is really where Herbert's fault lay. The jury is still out on JV's career management skills.

[mtl'78]

You make a good point Williams. I understand what you are saying, and it is a fact that Herbert isn't a top driver. Also, I wasn't trying to compare Villeneuve and Herbert, Villeneuve is a much better driver, and had much more experience when he joined F1. I was simply trying to illustrate that his career could had been very different had he been in Johnny's position. But as I said, great drivers almost always enventually drive good, even winning cars. Pure speculation.

You mention how Coulthard will probably never be champion as long as drivers like Schumacher Hakkinen Villeneuve and a few others are in similar cars, and that is true. However UNLIKE Herbert, Coulthard will have been given an equal chance to fail, Maclaren have been scrupulously fair to him over the inevitably faster Hakkinen, year after year. Coulthard knows that it is/was all down to him, a comfort Herbert was denied.