Jump to content


Photo

Miscellaneous thoughts on Perry McCarthy, Damon Hill, Nico Rosberg ...


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#1 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,688 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 19 April 2018 - 16:11

I wonder if any drivers or teams benefitted from reading this book and gained additional sponsorship? it would be nice to know and would certainly be an endorsement. A few years ago I went along to an evening with Perry McCarthy, his technique was to impersonate James Hunt on the phone to directors of large companies telling them of his young protégé and asking for a meeting to which they agreed as they though they would be meeting James Hunt, when Perry attended alone and told the director James wasn't able to attend the meeting they usually kicked him out. 10/10 for effort though.....

 

Many of us will have read his book, Flat out, flat broke. It's an amusing read, written by a possibly nice, but it seems to me hopelessly delusional bloke, who didn't achieve very much, and being brutally honest, never really looked as if he might have the necessary qualities in him. I wouldn't wish him any ill, but I think that he's well out of it while he still has working limbs. Perry might think differently, but there's nothing in the book that suggests that he'd have achieved much more, even with limitless funds at his disposal. When he gave up, potential sponsors everywhere probably breathed a large sigh of relief. It's obviously very hard going, but there are inspirational drivers around like Damon Hill, who reached the top without very much in the way of sponsorship, which usually amounts to wasting large sums of other peoples' money. We all know that it's a very expensive business, but drivers with real talent do get noticed, and that's often enough for them to progress. There's a lot of luck involved, knowing the right people, and being in the right place at the right time etc. Stroll's dad's money has helped him up to a point but if he keeps on underperforming, it won't help him in the longer term.



Advertisement

#2 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 3,131 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 19 April 2018 - 19:05

Good post Rob, fully agree about Perry McC. Never really did much in FF, nor F3, to justify any feeling of a great 'talent who got away'. Vaguely interesting read though



#3 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 19 April 2018 - 19:51

He had quite the talent though to get as far as he did.  Think of all the British drivers who should have made it to F1 and never did.  At least Pel got his name in the record books.  And he wouldn't have got that far had he been a duffer blagging it. 



#4 MCS

MCS
  • Member

  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 20 April 2018 - 20:00

Not sure about the McCarthy piece.  I have read his book, but didn't see him in Formula Ford and only once In Formula Three, as I didn't really get that involved with motor racing at that time. 

 

However, I did see him race in IMSA in 1991 and was extremely impressed by some of his drives, none more so than his pole-winning performance at the ghastly New Orleans road circuit mid season. He hadn't tested or even sat in the the revamped Spice GTP car before practice - which hadn't properly raced all season in any case - but he stuck it on pole, although almost frightening himself to death in the meantime. The series leading drivers were in shock and a pit peeved.  Unfortunately he had mechanical gremlins in a race when a boat would have been a better bet, so lost out again. I thought he was good and when I came back to the UK even bothered to get to Silverstone the following year where I am sure he would have made GP qualifying had his team given him dry tyres in what was then pre-qualifying  I have never quite forgotten the remarks made by track commentator Ian Titchmarsh to that effect.  Very sad.  I think he deserved much more.



#5 MCS

MCS
  • Member

  • 4,791 posts
  • Joined: June 03

Posted 20 April 2018 - 20:05

Talking of which - sorry I am rambling now - I wonder if he ever met Guy Edwards?  I know for a fact that Guy was at the Miami race (I was stood next to him at one point) and I am fairly certain he was at one or two others.  He had been involved with the sponsorship for the Jaguars of course.

 

And then there was somebody called Max Mosley who fell asleep in the seat next to me as the Portland IMSA race got underway.  (No more).



#6 F1matt

F1matt
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 21 April 2018 - 18:46

I accept Perry wasn’t the best but using Damon Hill as a comparison is puzzling, Hill is a nice bloke but his career up to F1 was woeful and totally unworthy of an F1 drive, his name and connections clearly got him into the job, possibly the luckiest champion the sport has had, and well beaten by most of his team mates.

I appreciate this is off topic and I don’t want to ruin a good thread discussing an interesting book.

#7 Mallory Dan

Mallory Dan
  • Member

  • 3,131 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 22 April 2018 - 08:00

F1Matt, that's nonsense. Hill won a nu ber of times in FF and F3, which McCarthy didn't. And he was seriously quick in F3000 too. I agree his name counted in his favour, but he delivered when needed. 



#8 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,688 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 22 April 2018 - 09:26

Are you sure you're on the right forum Matt?

 

One World Championship, and by rights two. Yes, very "lucky". 22 GP wins from 122 races, how "lucky" can a driver get? For what that's worth, a better record than for example, Mika Häkkinen or his Damon's dad Graham, but maybe they were both "lucky" and "unworthy" as well.



#9 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 9,741 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 22 April 2018 - 09:53

F1Matt, that's nonsense. Hill won a nu ber of times in FF and F3, which McCarthy didn't. And he was seriously quick in F3000 too. I agree his name counted in his favour, but he delivered when needed. 

 

His F3000 performances are sometimes overlooked because they didn't translate into results on account of reliability. However, that was what first made think he could make it, more than his FF or F3 performances which are possibly remembered more clearly. He didn't come from nowhere, but I would also agree that his name initially helped at Williams (although there were several other sons or brothers of famous drivers at the time too).  



#10 PlayboyRacer

PlayboyRacer
  • Member

  • 6,973 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 23 April 2018 - 07:19

People just hate giving Hill credit because he landed so quickly into a World Championship contending car. The same thing is applied to Villeneuve Jnr.

It's nonsense.

Edited by PlayboyRacer, 23 April 2018 - 07:23.


#11 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,879 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 26 April 2018 - 06:47

I accept Perry wasn’t the best but using Damon Hill as a comparison is puzzling, Hill is a nice bloke but his career up to F1 was woeful and totally unworthy of an F1 drive, his name and connections clearly got him into the job, possibly the luckiest champion the sport has had, and well beaten by most of his team mates.

I appreciate this is off topic and I don’t want to ruin a good thread discussing an interesting book.

 
As said , that's a very very unfair representation of DH's career.. He was competent , but unremarkable in lower formulae but as soon as he was driving big power cars he excelled .I had seen him many times in FF1600 and F3 and considered him just another of the pack of Brits - Herbert, Donnelly , Wallace, Blundell et al who were around  . But in F3000 he found his mojo and his F1 success confirmed that . He had no money , an incredibly tough childhood , no real karting experience and was older than his peers - and a name means very little in this game without talent - ask the Mansell  brothers about that ...  
 
DH got an F1 drive because he was quick , smart and consistent . He was thrown in at the deepest end imaginable , against two drivers as team mates who were on anyone;s best ever list . And he came through. I think , on his day (never more so than at Suzuka ) he was as good as anybody but unlike most drivers he didn't have any issue to admit the likes of Senna were  better drivers . Not without his faults - and self doubt and introspection   were key flaws but nobody wins one GP , let alone 22 without serious ability. And one thing shoudl never be in doubt - of all his contemporaries right back to Peter Revson  , no one has written with more insight and soul baring honesty about his career .

#12 kayemod

kayemod
  • Member

  • 9,688 posts
  • Joined: August 05

Posted 26 April 2018 - 08:35

Very well put John.

 

Slightly sad that some people, supposedly "Effwun" followers, need to have all this explained to them.



#13 Nick Planas

Nick Planas
  • Member

  • 383 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 26 April 2018 - 12:31

 
As said , that's a very very unfair representation of DH's career.. He was competent , but unremarkable in lower formulae but as soon as he was driving big power cars he excelled .I had seen him many times in FF1600 and F3 and considered him just another of the pack of Brits - Herbert, Donnelly , Wallace, Blundell et al who were around  . But in F3000 he found his mojo and his F1 success confirmed that . He had no money , an incredibly tough childhood , no real karting experience and was older than his peers - and a name means very little in this game without talent - ask the Mansell  brothers about that ...  
 
DH got an F1 drive because he was quick , smart and consistent . He was thrown in at the deepest end imaginable , against two drivers as team mates who were on anyone;s best ever list . And he came through. I think , on his day (never more so than at Suzuka ) he was as good as anybody but unlike most drivers he didn't have any issue to admit the likes of Senna were  better drivers . Not without his faults - and self doubt and introspection   were key flaws but nobody wins one GP , let alone 22 without serious ability. And one thing shoudl never be in doubt - of all his contemporaries right back to Peter Revson  , no one has written with more insight and soul baring honesty about his career .

Wasn't it Eddie Irvine (not necessarily a great friend / fan of Damon's) who ticked someone off once for suggesting DH wasn't a worthy champion - something along the lines of "Anyone who wins the WDC deserves total respect for it - it's a lot harder than anyone can imagine" - and there spoke a guy who came close in '99



#14 Charlieman

Charlieman
  • Member

  • 2,592 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 26 April 2018 - 13:03

One has to remember that Damon Hill had the finest car and tyres with Arrows and Bridgestone in 1997. He still tossed away a GP victory in Hungary -- how did he fail to see the cockpit read out that a washer was about to fail?



#15 F1matt

F1matt
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 26 April 2018 - 19:18

F1Matt, that's nonsense. Hill won a nu ber of times in FF and F3, which McCarthy didn't. And he was seriously quick in F3000 too. I agree his name counted in his favour, but he delivered when needed.




John Wickham tested them both in F3000 and they were close, he went with Hill because he thought the name would be more attractive to sponsors. Having a father who was a champion will always help a driver go far in the sport. Nico Rosberg reminds me a lot of Damon Hill, both nice guys who come across well in the media.

#16 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 26 April 2018 - 19:28

Do you think Kekinho came across well?  He tended to have the sour face of a bulldog licking piss off a thistle.  Spoilt rich kid who had his career handed to him and who fled before defending the title that fell into his lap thanks to Mercedes not bothering with Hamilton's car.



#17 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 26 April 2018 - 21:29

Do you think Kekinho came across well?  He tended to have the sour face of a bulldog licking piss off a thistle.  Spoilt rich kid who had his career handed to him and who fled before defending the title that fell into his lap thanks to Mercedes not bothering with Hamilton's car.

RJ, you're right about the thread of course but...
 
'Do you think Kekinho came across well?'  YES.
 
'Spoilt rich kid who had his career handed to him and who fled before defending the title that fell into his lap thanks to Mercedes not bothering with Hamilton's car.' RUBBISH.

#18 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 26 April 2018 - 22:29

0 mechanical failures to 8.  That's the sort of hammering Alonso used to dish out to Massa.



#19 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,879 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 April 2018 - 05:45

Do you think Kekinho came across well?  He tended to have the sour face of a bulldog licking piss off a thistle.  Spoilt rich kid who had his career handed to him and who fled before defending the title that fell into his lap thanks to Mercedes not bothering with Hamilton's car.

  I'm sure he speaks highly of you too.He beat Hamilton and was world champion - that's enough of a testimony.And if coulda woulda shoulda had a place in this sport Tommy Byrne would have been a multiple champion by now , as would Jan Magnussen  .

 

If you need more then think about JYS's verdict after Rosberg's GP debut .  Rather than handing out gratuitous insults , which really don't belong here, try watching the Motor Sport podcast with Rosberg - it gave me a real insight into how he got under Hamilton's skin  - he certainly showed some mind game mastery with his interviewer.   


Edited by john aston, 27 April 2018 - 05:47.


Advertisement

#20 proviz

proviz
  • Member

  • 723 posts
  • Joined: October 06

Posted 27 April 2018 - 06:20

I interviewed "Kekinho"for nearly two hours in the winter before he moved to GP2 and he came across as by far the most interesting young racing driver I'd ever met. The interview actually turned into proper conversation, simply because he was not only interested in himself, ski jets or video games, but subjects which also appeal to an older generation.

(And, yes, this is way off topic!)



#21 Kenzclass

Kenzclass
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: October 14

Posted 27 April 2018 - 06:41

While having a famous and successful father can sometimes be an initial leg up, it can cut both ways.

"Not the man his father was.." can be an abrupt epitaph, if someone fails to measure up as expected.



#22 AJCee

AJCee
  • Member

  • 377 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 27 April 2018 - 07:04

As said , that's a very very unfair representation of DH's career.. He was competent , but unremarkable in lower formulae but as soon as he was driving big power cars he excelled .I had seen him many times in FF1600 and F3 and considered him just another of the pack of Brits - Herbert, Donnelly , Wallace, Blundell et al who were around . But in F3000 he found his mojo and his F1 success confirmed that . He had no money , an incredibly tough childhood , no real karting experience and was older than his peers - and a name means very little in this game without talent - ask the Mansell brothers about that ...


Amongst a raft of other comments: amen.

It was, for me, a great time in British F3 with some very talented, rather talented and some 'enthusiastic' drivers. Anyone watching with any appreciation of ability could see DH just needed the right car (and a Ralt Toyota wasn't it). His performance in F3000 was not reflected in results. This hackneyed Effone-fanesque trope of him being a lucky champion smacks of looking at results in a book and a lack of actually being there seeing them.

It's also lazy to think that Damon didn't do it the hard way.

#23 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 07:17

If you need more then think about JYS's verdict after Rosberg's GP debut .  Rather than handing out gratuitous insults , which really don't belong here, try watching the Motor Sport podcast with Rosberg - it gave me a real insight into how he got under Hamilton's skin  - he certainly showed some mind game mastery with his interviewer.   

 

I don't deride his ability, but he wasn't really in the same class as Hamilton.  It really grated though that he claimed he won the title because he got under Hamilton's skin and put him off.  No, he won the title because he had a season where he had zero mechanical failures and Hamilton had 8, and because he twice got away with punting Hamilton off track without a penalty.  Hence he quit before things evened themselves out over the next season.
 



#24 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 07:48

8 mechanical failures, and twice punted off? Yet, according to Wikipedia he retired only twice all year :confused:

As said , that's a very very unfair representation of DH's career.. He was competent , but unremarkable in lower formulae but as soon as he was driving big power cars he excelled .I had seen him many times in FF1600 and F3 and considered him just another of the pack of Brits - Herbert, Donnelly , Wallace, Blundell et al who were around  . But in F3000 he found his mojo and his F1 success confirmed that . He had no money , an incredibly tough childhood , no real karting experience and was older than his peers - and a name means very little in this game without talent - ask the Mansell  brothers about that ...  
 
DH got an F1 drive because he was quick , smart and consistent . He was thrown in at the deepest end imaginable , against two drivers as team mates who were on anyone;s best ever list . And he came through. I think , on his day (never more so than at Suzuka ) he was as good as anybody but unlike most drivers he didn't have any issue to admit the likes of Senna were  better drivers . Not without his faults - and self doubt and introspection   were key flaws but nobody wins one GP , let alone 22 without serious ability. And one thing shoudl never be in doubt - of all his contemporaries right back to Peter Revson  , no one has written with more insight and soul baring honesty about his career .


Excellent post! :up:

#25 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 08:07

8 mechanical failures, and twice punted off? Yet, according to Wikipedia he retired only twice all year :confused:
 

 

Yes, Hamilton survived one of the puntings to win while Rosberg dropped to 4th, but he got no proper penalty for deliberately trying to take a driver out.  He certainly learned that from Schumacher anyway. 

 

And the mechanical failings were things that gave Hamilton grid penalties - in a car notoriously bad when it was not in front.

 

When Hamilton did not have a mechanical issue, the overall score was Hamilton 10 wins, Rosberg 5.  And when you consider Malaysia cost Hamilton a surefire win...it was as bad as 1987 when the title went to the palpably slower driver.

 

 



#26 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 08:17

So, nothing new, then. In order to finish first, first you have to finish. That's one of the great things about motor racing, it's not only about being fast, but about keeping the car under you. Some were always better than others in that, it's why Felice Nazzaro triumphed over Vincenzo Lancia, and Rudi Caracciola over Manfred von Brauchitsch.

#27 Vitesse2

Vitesse2
  • Administrator

  • 43,447 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 08:34

I think e14 was drawing attention to the unfairness of grid penalties, Michael. If - as was sometimes the case, MvB over-stressed his engine or blew up his gearbox in practice, they could just fit another with no penalty. Although Rudi would still beat him anyway.  ;)  I think Lang used three different engines at one meeting.

 

And if you examine earlier seasons, you'll find that when Rosberg retired during a a race Hamilton almost invariably went on to win that race. Whereas when Hamilton retired, Rosberg almost invariably didn't win it!

 

Going right back to karting days, when they were in comparable equipment as team mates, Lewis always had the measure of Nico.



#28 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 08:51

I don't doubt that, but as said, motor racing is not only about being fast, you simply have to keep your car running. I don't know whether grid penalties are unfair or not, but that's the same as saying the WDC scoring was unfair in 1987 to allow Piquet to win the championship, or 1988, or 1989 - plenty of those discussions around already. Cf The Racing Driver's Book of Excuses, p1ff.

#29 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 09:24

So, nothing new, then. In order to finish first, first you have to finish. That's one of the great things about motor racing, it's not only about being fast, but about keeping the car under you. Some were always better than others in that, it's why Felice Nazzaro triumphed over Vincenzo Lancia, and Rudi Caracciola over Manfred von Brauchitsch.

 

The difference is that these days there is eff all the driver can do, other than not crash, to do anything about reliability.  It was suspiciously weird that Hamilton had a shedload of problems when Rosberg did not, after they had been shared roughly evenly over the previous years.  Perhaps coincidental that at the start of the season Mercedes swapped around the tech teams...

 

Anyway, History will out.  Hamilton will go down as one of the all-time greats, and Kekinho will go down as someone who fluked the luckiest title in a generation and ran off before he was humiliated.

 

Had he stuck around and not been humiliated, he would have gone down as the bloke who retired Schumacher...
 



#30 F1matt

F1matt
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 27 April 2018 - 11:19

While having a famous and successful father can sometimes be an initial leg up, it can cut both ways.

"Not the man his father was.." can be an abrupt epitaph, if someone fails to measure up as expected.

 

 

But it does give a driver a ticket, and comparisons with the father usually don't mean they lose a drive. I think we are going to see this tested in a big way in the next couple of years, when Mick Schumacher enters F1 and has the hopes a nation and an army of his Dads fans waiting for him to annihilate everyone like Michael did, except he wont have Michael there to guide him. 

 

I also expect young Alesi and Deletrez to enter the sport without the same pressure, then followed by Sebastian Montoya, Barrichello jr, and eventually Robin Raikkonen because of the free ride sons of drivers get.



#31 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,589 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 27 April 2018 - 11:53

I have worked with both after their driving careers, and both are that unusual thing,  genuinely nice gents, that could also drive the wheels of something. From what I saw, both  were of similar talent, but one maybe to nice to push to get the best kit given to him, just grateful to be given the chance. You really don't even get the chance to get your bum in a Grand Prix car if there is no ability, so that is a pointless argument. I recall a kart event at  one Grand Prix, and some of us FOM boys were asked along. Some of those were roundly slating Alex Yoong as a driver who should not be in F1, and had no ability. They changed their minds after he lapped them for the fifth time on an incredibly slippery track, on slicks. It's all relative 


Edited by f1steveuk, 27 April 2018 - 13:00.


#32 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 1,041 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:36

So Nico Rosberg is Nostalgia a mere 18 months after retiring. Does that mean that the recent history sub-forum will cover anything more than 7 days old? 

 

"someone who fluked the luckiest title in a generation and ran off before he was humiliated." Please leave this sort of abuse for RC. I trust that Stirling Moss fans showed greater respect to Mike Hawthorn when he retired.  



#33 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:41

The difference is that these days there is eff all the driver can do, other than not crash, to do anything about reliability.


You said yourself that Hamilton had 8 mechanical failures, and Rosberg 0 - I have no way of checking whether that is true, but if it is, nothing further needs to be said. Eight (!) to zero (!) - there's no way in the world you can write that off as accidental.


Steve, who are you talking about when you say "both"? Hamilton and Rosberg? Hill and Schumacher? Or, Lancia and Nazzaro? :confused:

#34 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:45

So Nico Rosberg is Nostalgia a mere 18 months after retiring. Does that mean that the recent history sub-forum will cover anything more than 7 days old?

"someone who fluked the luckiest title in a generation and ran off before he was humiliated." Please leave this sort of abuse for RC. I trust that Stirling Moss fans showed greater respect to Mike Hawthorn when he retired. [/size]


In the age of bullet proof reliabilty, it looks to me like Hamilton is the lucky champion here. Twenty years ago, he probably wouldn't have finished a single Grand Prix.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 27 April 2018 - 12:46.


#35 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 12:47

You said yourself that Hamilton had 8 mechanical failures, and Rosberg 0 - I have no way of checking whether that is true, but if it is, nothing further needs to be said. Eight (!) to zero (!) - there's no way in the world you can write that off as accidental.
 

 

Indeed.  Hence the hypothesis that Mercedes pulled a Ken Miles on Hamilton.  After all, Hamilton now has the record for most consecutive points finishes, so he is not the car-breaker...
 



#36 f1steveuk

f1steveuk
  • Member

  • 3,589 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 27 April 2018 - 13:02



Steve, who are you talking about when you say "both"? Hamilton and Rosberg? Hill and Schumacher? Or, Lancia and Nazzaro? :confused:

Didn't make that clear, did I!!?? Damon and Perry



#37 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 13:03

Indeed. Hence the hypothesis that Mercedes pulled a Ken Miles on Hamilton. After all, Hamilton now has the record for most consecutive points finishes, so he is not the car-breaker...


Yeah, that's plausible. After winning only a couple of World Championships in his two years with the team, Benz must've been desperate to get rid of Hamilton. Imagine their horror when, after being treated so badly, he still signed on for another year with the team! Their worst nightmares were confirmed when he won another title last year... and still wouldn't go!

Like Guilio Ramponi wrote to Dick Seaman after the 1938 German Grand Prix: "... the fact that you changed tyres only once, he (Brauchitsch) twice proves that you were driving a better race..." (cf. William Court, Power and Glory, p230). The fastest driver is not necessarily the best!

Edited by Michael Ferner, 27 April 2018 - 13:04.


#38 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 13:25

The idea was that if Hamilton won the title, the headlines would be "Hamilton wins title".

 

Whereas if it were Rosberg, they would be "Mercedes wins title".

 

There was some weirdness that year.  They swapped the tech teams over at the start, for instance.  But Rosberg quitting seems to have had the same effect on Mercedes as Jones quitting had on Williams; they had a reappraisal of real loyalty. 

 

Fact is Hamilton is not a car-breaker.  So having so many mechanical faults was a bit sus.  If you think it was down to Hamilton, you have to explain how a driver can bork an energy recovery system or software, as issues with those cost Hamilton perhaps three Grands Prix.



#39 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 13:33

I don't even know what an energy recovery system is, but the fact that Rosberg did not "bork" it proves that he was the better driver, to paraphrase Ramponi. Simples. :)

Advertisement

#40 john aston

john aston
  • Member

  • 2,879 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 27 April 2018 - 15:36

Just like his Dad's single victory to win a championship Nico's title  was deserved of course . It works like this  - you get more points than the other guys and you win. It really is that simple and whilst some enjoy creating hindsighted silly conspiracy theories and similar guff  I prefer a more binary approach , if only to avoid coping with the parallel universes which  kick in when the 'if onlys ' start to be mumbled .In that world you tie yourself in knots - and I'd rather waste my  time pondering what did happen ,rather than wnat might have happened  .   



#41 AJCee

AJCee
  • Member

  • 377 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 27 April 2018 - 16:09

Much in the way some people dismiss 'lucky victories': clearly the person concerned was ahead of everyone else when the 'deserved' winner broke down/was taken out/threw it at the scenery...

The race has a set distance and it's the person who leads at the end of the last lap that counts, not the other ones.

Edited by AJCee, 27 April 2018 - 22:08.


#42 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 18:45

Just like his Dad's single victory to win a championship Nico's title  was deserved of course . It works like this  - you get more points than the other guys and you win.

 

That's why the title is worthless.  It's basically accountancy. 



#43 opplock

opplock
  • Member

  • 1,041 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 27 April 2018 - 19:27

 "It's basically accountancy." 

 

Chartered Accountancy - the career for people who can't stand the tedium of being World Motor Racing Champion. And I thought I'd given up the dream due to a lack of both talent and money! 

      



#44 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 19:41

Let's put it this way.

 

If the Portuguese Grand Prix 1984 had ended on lap 52, Prost would have been champion.  On the basis that the one with the most points deserves it, Prost would have deserved it.

 

But it went on after then.  And Lauda became champion.  Apparently because he deserved it.

 

How did he deserve it?  What magical feat did he pull off over the last dozen laps?

 

Nothing at all.  He deserved it because Mansell had a brake failure.  The Lotus brakes were the thing that made Lauda better than Prost. 

 

So either you take Mansell's retirement as being the proof that Lauda was better than Prost in 1984, or you take the more sensible view that the world championship is a sham of a mockery of a sham.



#45 Rob Ryder

Rob Ryder
  • Member

  • 2,657 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 27 April 2018 - 19:51

..... or you take the more sensible view that the world championship is a sham of a mockery of a sham.

 

Do you really like F1 and motorsport (except for a few English drivers) :confused:



#46 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 19:53

We had this before, didn't we? Winning a championship proves absolutely nothing. It's an achievement, nothing more, nothing less. Lauda deserved it in 1984 because he kept at it, knowing the race would take 72 laps or whatever. If the race had been stopped on lap 52, then he'd have had tough luck, and Prost would've deserved it because he kept at it. That's what sport is about. And Rosberg deserved the 2016 title, no matter how many tantrums you throw.

#47 Michael Ferner

Michael Ferner
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 27 April 2018 - 19:55

Do you really like F1 and motorsport (except for a few English drivers) :confused:


No, he's a fanboy. He likes being a fan.

#48 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 20:11

Do you really like F1 and motorsport (except for a few English drivers) :confused:

 

Because I think that working out a champion by adding up a stochastic series of points is a stupid thing means I'm not a motor sport fan?  How does that work? 

 

Proof of the pudding: who won the Indy 500 in 1973?  And who won the USAC title that year?  No googling.

 

Or, who won Le Mans in 1981, and who won the WSC in 1981?



#49 ensign14

ensign14
  • Member

  • 65,023 posts
  • Joined: December 01

Posted 27 April 2018 - 20:13

And Rosberg deserved the 2016 title, no matter how many tantrums you throw.

 

See, that's where we differ.  I think that if you are going to have a title, then, to win it, you should beat your team-mate more often than they beat you.  And Rosberg did not do that.  The sole reason he got the 2016 title was because his car was more reliable than Hamilton's and that's something into which he had no input at all.  Even ignoring conspiracies that's pure dumb luck and not earning it.  Same applies to Piquet in 1987 and Farina in 1950. 

 

It is in debates like these that I so wish Eddie Irvine had won in 1999...



#50 john winfield

john winfield
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 27 April 2018 - 22:17

The sole reason he got the 2016 title was because his car was more reliable than Hamilton's 

 

Ensign, what is up with you today? This statement is patently ridiculous. Reliability may have been a factor, but was hardly the 'sole reason' for Rosberg's championship. You have to be a very talented driver, experienced in Formula 1, to stand any chance of competing with a team mate as good as Hamilton. Rosberg had a good year and won the championship. It doesn't prove anything particularly but it happened. Nico Rosberg was the 2016 World Champion. Lewis Hamilton was not.