23 replies to this topic

[Louis Mr. F1]

hello everyone,

i'm watching the 2000 Belgian GP video and Brundle, as the commentator @ ITV, praised Alesi on bringing the dogged Prost into 4th place with a great drive/tactic, and on several other occassions said how much Alesi deserves a better seat.

but i remember when Brundle was still a F1 driver, the two didn't get along at all. Does anyone still remember how it all started? Sometimes, i wonder if some of these drivers hatreds were a result of behind-the-scene driver market movement problem? also how they made up? (if they've made up).

and as a former driver turned commentator, sometimes it must be hard for Brundle to accept now that he has to make an appointment with all these younger drivers (which in the past was behind him on the grid) in order to do an interview and see the "arrogant" side of a F1 driver.

guys, be patient until next March.

[Zawed]

I think it started when Brundle was at Benetton in 92, and frequently shared the same piece of track with Alesi. Unless it dates back further to his Brabham days.....

[DangerMouse]

They did have a few coming togethers - the thing with Alesi his he'll routinely try a :mad:stupid:mad: pass and then when he has taken both of you off he'll complain about the other driver.

He seems to have calmed down a little over the past two seassons but hell it's taken long enough.

I remember Schumacher trying to get at Hill saying look at me and Alesi we can race without contact - the very next race they took each other off

[Mila]

Brundle crashed out of the 92 Brazilian GP, having made contact with JA. the British driver accused the Frenchman of Formula Ford-like driving. (I don't know JA's version of the story.) Brundle went on to have several untidy performances in 92, but, if memory serves, JA wasn't further invloved.

the way I remember it, the fireworks started with Brundle at Ligier the following year. was it wayward blocking at Monaco that set things off?

according to Brundle, JA complained about his driving, for a different incident, later that same year. only on that occasion it was Suzuki, an alternate at Ligier, behind the wheel.

I recall too that JA was compelled to make light of the lofty Mclaren team signing the seemingly down-and-out Brundle for 94. according to JA, they left it too late to find anyone else to drive the car.

[Mila]

ps: we are now within 100 days of the Australian GP!

[Bruce]

Reminds me of the situation between James Hunt and Patrese - at least, unlike Hunt, Brundle doesn't let past incidents colour his judgement...

[Indian Chief]

Right Bruce. That's just one of the many reasons I like Brundle's commentary a lot. He does bring up old incidents (like Alesi took me off at Turn 1 here in '92...Berger took me off trying to pass me at Turn 14 etc.) but its never with bitterness or hate.

[Mila]

ok, I have the facts finally. the big Brundle contretemps (the one I was thinking of) came in 95--not 93--at Monaco. JA was running in second spot when Brundle, while being lapped, lost control of his Ligier. according to Brundle, his spin was due to a broken shock. some had the impression that he was trying to race JA. regardless, both cars were out on the spot. JA explains:

"Ever since I was racing in the Tyrrell and him in the Brabham [1990] he has been a problem for me, and it's the same story every year. It wouldn't have happened if he had simply let me through."

"What he did in Monaco was dangerous. He might be a good driver, aggressive, reliable, but the way he tries to prove his potential shows a lack of understanding of racing . . . The day someone does to him what he did to me at Monaco, I am sure he will think twice about it."

also, the Suzuki/JA incident came at Imola, which was prior to--not later than (as I had had it in the prior post)--Monaco.

[The RedBaron]

of course Dangermouse would never admit it's a British driver's fault, so by process of elimination it must be Alesi's fault.

[Louis Mr. F1]

if i remember correctly, it might be started in Alesi's very first year in F1 89. In the Spanish gp, Alesi (Tyrrell) was making a very daring move at the end of the pit straight, passed Brundle (Brabham,with backward facing camera), but ran a bit wide at the exit. Brundle tried to repass Alesi but Alesi closed the door by pushing Brundle onto the grass. That maybe the start of the bitter rivalry.

also, in 94, the Belgian GP, Alesi accused Brundle of holding him up in qualifying. Alesi was on dry tires in a semi wet track, which means he couldnt pass Brundle off the line. But Brundle was on his own flying lap as well and had the right to stay on line. Back in the pit, Alesi ran to the Mclaren pit, shouting @ Brundle, saying that the only reason Mclaren hired him was because they couldn't find a better one.

[Dudley]

Surely every team hires EVERY driver because they couldn't get someone better?;)

[Mila]

Originally posted by Dudley
Surely every team hires EVERY driver because they couldn't get someone better?;)

that's true to a degree, however looking at the Mclaren scenario:

in 94 qualification, the score was MH 15, Brundle 0. not once during a race that season did Brundle RUN ahead of MH. now, going back one year, MH was the very driver Mclaren--for various reasons--didn't (at least initially) deem worthy of a drive (instead opting for a prima donna who found motivation only when Prost was in his sights, and for a driver who never got on with the program--but these are other stories).

in light of Brundle's 94 performance, vis a vis MH--and of MH's second-tier stature at Mclaren in 93--what can we conclude about the team's expectations of Brundle?

of course 94 was a new dawn (of sorts) for Mclaren--without Senna, with Peugeot, et al.--so perhaps Brundle was taken on as an "experienced" driver (as opposed to an ace with pace) in the hopes of getting the car up to speed. then again, this is why teams have test drivers, but, alas, at Mclaren for 94, this role was occupied by the esteemed Philippe Alliot. so it wasn't enough to have one slowpoke on board, thanks to Peugeot, Mclaren had two aging number-two drivers. as one Mclaren staffer put it, in days past they wouldn't have allowed a driver like Alliot to drive the transporter. nevertheless, at least for the Hungarian GP, Brundle was up against someone he could out-qualify.

I'm sorry, but Brundle really had his chance in F1, and while he made a good career of it, he didn't really cut it. often enough I find it difficult to accept his criticism of current--winning--drivers. moreover, his school-is-in-session comments, made to denote the beginning of a new season, seem to foster the impression that somehow he, say, in the role of the master, posesses key knowledge, whereas the current drivers are something like wide-eyed students. this is a crude analogy, but, nonetheless, more and more over recent seasons the perception is developing that F1 drivers are not only not masterful, but within the team they don't do much of the thinking either. however true or false this might be, high-handed comments from an ex-driver with a modest CV doesn't help in this matter.

as for James Hunt, he was often out of order, so much so that sometimes the comments were laughable (it's hard to believe that one person could cause Murray Walker to be speechless). (Bruce, the beef with Patrese was indeed sad. the way I understand it, Hunt--like some of the other drivers--blamed the Italian for the death of Ronnie Peterson. some have it that Hunt decided to quit racing then and there at Monza. apparently the ex-WDC had a glimpse of cold fear, expressed in the Swede's eyes as he tended to him in the wrecked Lotus.) but while there was criticism coming from Hunt, there was also praise; and unlike these days, praise was meted out fairly, and it found its way to more than one or two drivers. (and let's not mistake "hype" for "praise.")

in appreciating Hunt and Brundle as commentators, I have to offer another crude analogy: both have talked the talk, but only one of them walked the walk.

[Zawed]

Mila, I think you are being a bit tough on Brundle there. While he never was a great qualifier, he more often than not raced better than he qualified. Against Schuey in 92 in the Benetton, he did'nt exactly disgrace himself considering he was up against a future 3 times WC. 38 points against 54 odd, not too bad. I think he had a similar record in qualifing in 92 as he did against Mika in that Schuey was ahead the majority of the time. But in the races, quite often he was ahead of Schuey or pushing him hard; as the Benetton was the third best car that year they often raced each other.

I quite enjoy his commentating he is well informed, and having only retired relatively recently relates well to the current standard of racing. He also does'nt seem to be biased by his own experience eg. praising Alesi for good racing when it appears Alesi bears him a grudge. Hunt, while I never heard him commentate, did appear to allow some things to colour his judgement eg Patrese.

[Gruff]

Paraphrasing here, but the general idea is from the BBC Motorsports Review Magazine 1994. Johnathon Palmer (ahem) was discussing his top ten drivers:

"Martin doesn't qualify well. That is why he'll never make a number 1 driver...blah...blah...blah...But his racing and experience means that he is worth of 10th place in his ranking of F1 drivers."

Which I believe, for his time, was correct. OK MH outqualified / raced Brundle, but in Monaco 94, could you really see Mika overtaking Berger for second place in that McLaren. No, me neither. Brundle wasn't great (The driver who has been in the most GP without actually LEADING one? Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong), but he was by no means a slouch.

As for Alesi, he spent too much time at Ferarri when Ferarri were crap. Now he's too old. Another talent wasted.

[Mila]

Zawed, perhaps my argument wasn't refined enough.

I follow you 100% in respects to Brundle being a knowledgeable commentator. (I really appreciated his article on pit stops in F1 Racing; it was articulate and insightful.) what I question is his authority, that is: what are the conditions that permit him to pass judgement on drivers? if there is one thing I can give Derek Bell credit for it's that, when he commentates, despite his harking back to the old days at Ferrari, he has made it clear that the top guys today are performing at a level he never achieved in F1. Brundle seems too proud (or competitive) to adopt such a perspective.

this isn't to say that if he had won GPs, Brundle would necessarily be a better commentator. how many times have we heard Jackie Stewart get it wrong? and isn't the Scheckter column in Autosport the biggest waste of prime space?

as for Brundle's stay at Mclaren, perhaps they were right for each other at the time. but I have to conclude that Mclaren didn't wind up with a better driver because the better drivers knew enough not to go there.

Gruff, Brundle did do himself proud at Monaco in 94. but, if not for the first corner collision with Hill, where would have MH been when Brundle was battling Berger? lapping them? that is a modest exaggeration, but, please, MH out-qualified his teammate by over 2 seconds.

[Zawed]

Mila, thats a fair comment and I can see what you are driving at. Obviously he can't pass judgement on the top drivers, but he can still relate to most of action. He did spend some time fighting for podium positions, but not for outright wins. I can't say I've noticed if Brundle reflects that some drivers were superior to him. I actually think he has made comments about how much better Schuey was, but then Schuey is a 3 times Champ...he would be silly not to admit that he was not as good as Scheuy! He may have also commented on his own abilities versus others on the grid; i.e former teammates, but I really can't remember.

[Huw Jenjin]

Really!
Martin Brundle ran neck and neck with Senna in F3, and came close to beating him for the championship, and they regularly took each other off because they were scrapping so hard.
Don't get me wrong I'm not going to say that Senna wasn't that good, but Brundle certainly had the measure of him.
Senna got good breaks, Brundle got a whole series of bad breaks. Brundle only got in a good car when somebody better than Senna was driving the other one. The only other time was a one off in a Williams.
Can anybody tell me that he got in a genuine regular GP winning car? those Tyrells were only good because they broke the rules.However Senna, Schumacher, Prost, Mansell and Hill all got regular GP winning vehicles.
IMHO Brundle was unlucky, and that amount of bad luck grinds you down into a make weight mentality, which is exactly where Alesi is now.
To get to the point, I think Brundle is extremely well qualified, by age, experience and skill, to judge all of todays drivers, certainly as a school master might view his pupils, because he has been there and worn the tee shirt.
Most of them have not, and dont have the benefit of hindsight. RE Alesi, he had more of a problem with Brundle than the other way round.
Alesi is just like Delecour, and look what has happened to him!

[Louis Mr. F1]

hello everybody,

i'm glad that you guys enjoy the Brundle vs Alesi discussions. Yesterday, while i was going through some old Autosports magazines, i discovered this 1998 February Nigel Roebuck column regarding Brundle's career change from a F1 driver to a commentator.

------------------------
He still thinks himself as a driver who's on TV, rather than a TV person. "these days i make a joke that it took me 12 years to find out that the worst job in F1 is to be a driver! But there are other times .......... Last year (97), i tested for Benetton and also Arrows - i mean, i shook down the Arrows,and when i was a driver, i didn't even like shaking my own cars down!! (you have to wonder why?)

"i remember that day well, i flew into Silverstone in a chopper, drove the car and then flew home again - and i couldn't get the smile off my face! it was the most pleasure i'd had in a car for a long time. I had no pressure, i drove the car, told the engineers what i thought, and at the end of the day, if i hadn't done a good time, so what? As it happened i did, but.....there are times when i go out on a circuit, on a Friday, to watch the cars and the frustration is huge! Half the drivers in the field ..... i could blow their doors off now!! i know it"
"then there's the untimed session at spa or suzuka and it's pouring with rain, i'll be watching and think "i don't need that!" And as time goes by, i guess there will be more of the "i don't need that" days and the "i've got to get back to the car" days.
One of the down side of moving from the cockpit is that privileges is lost. so now you head for the media car park, which is someway from the paddock "that hurts a bit, you become very aware of that you've stepped the other side of the fence"
Most of the collegues have been entirely helpful to him, even so, he wondered how they would take to him in the new guise, probably he would be more uncomfortable with situation than they. "over the years, i had a few run ins, but i get on fine with all the drivers now. As you get older, you get wiser, you mellow a bit and these things become irrelevent, really."

------------
the article is only half quoted, since it'll take a long time to finish it. but i hope it gives you more insight into Brundle's own opinion/perspective on his career change.

nice day!

[Mila]

Originally posted by Huw Jenjin
Martin Brundle ran neck and neck with Senna in F3, and came close to beating him for the championship, and they regularly took each other off because they were scrapping so hard.

that's absolutely true. in the F3 days, Senna held Brundle in high regard. but looking back on his F1 career, I have to wonder what in the world happened. (did his Dallas accident in 84 knock the stuffing out of him? just a guess.)

[Todd]

I think the reason so many F3 and FF stars are mediocre in F1 has to do with driving style. F1 cars have been over powered since 1967. F3 and FF drivers rely on momentum to go fastest. Senna and Schumacher's styles rely on throttle control. That is why so many of Senna's rivals in the lesser series were fodder in F1, and why Michael's superiority over his contemporaries became most obvious in F1. It is also why these two are known as the best in the rain. The greater the disparity between available power and traction, the further their advantage over the drivers that relied on surgical lines.

[Simioni]

Brundle's challenge to Senna in F3 was aided by a superior engine spec. Senna still won the first 9 races, but then made things difficult for himself when he kept crashing while trying to keep beating Brundle's superior equipment. Had he settled for 2nd more often, the championship would have been a cakewalk.

[Louis Mr. F1]

back to the original topic, so it seems indeed Brundle and Alesi have made up their differences after Brundle's retirement.

does anyone know any other old rivalries mending after they are out of the sport?? ie Mansell and Prost, or Mansell and Piquet ....

[Huw Jenjin]

I can't see anyone mellowing to piquet, he said the most detestable things about people. Not a nice guy.

[Amadeus]

I can't really see anyone mellowing to Mansell either - not a bad driver (brave, strong and quick) but he was a total charisma void. You know he's a part time copper now? Imagine getting pulled for speeding and this flat brummie drawl "......so who do you think you are then, Nelson Piquet?" :lol::lol: