23 replies to this topic

[bear]

http://www.atlasf1.c...p/id/9207/.html

"Hill partnered Alain Prost at Williams in 1993 and drove alongside Ayrton Senna the following year before the Brazilian great tragically died at the San Marino Grand Prix. But he believes the days of great driver partnerships - like Senna and Prost at McLaren and Nelson Piquet and Nigel Mansell at Williams in the late 1980s are a thing of the past.


The drivers' freedom is being bought for the security of the brand," he told the Daily Express. "Teams naturally don't want to put the brand at risk by having a personality who will actually say what he thinks. Ferrari are part and parcel of the problem with Michael Schumacher.

It is a marketing package and it means that you cannot have Schumacher and Montoya together at Williams or anywhere else."

Is Damon Hill right? Are never going to see Schumacher or Montoya or JV paired on a good team in the future?

Mark

[Ghostrider]

Marketing has always been important in F1, but with so many manufacturers involved it is more important than ever. That is why many driver choices are more based on marketing and sponsoring than driver capability nowadays. It is sad in a way.

[The First MH]

Recent evidence continues to suggest that he is. But I continue to live in the hope that he isn't.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Damon Hill is absolutely partially right. We only need to look beyond F1 to see this trend in sports. (Ronaldo and stupid Nike)
Howver, the beauty about F1, is that there 10s and 10s of other battles going on at any given time. Be it small or large. MS vs. JPM/JPM vs. RS/KR vs. DC/BAR vs. Jordan/Honda vs. Toyota/Bridges vs. Bibendum etc etc. U get the point......
High-profile, high-stakes, intra-team driver rivarly may very well be a thing of the past (but never say never) but that was usually a bonus for us fans. It never really was the main mantra of F1 IMO. The main point of F1 is for drivers in one team to beat drivers and cars of other teams. Lets not forget that some team owners frowned upon extreme driver team rivarly. So unfortunately we may lose a nice fringe benefit, but not all is lost......There are other things to like about F1.

[MrSlow]

He is propably right, now, but I think things will change.
I think the biggest problem is that the last years they have been trying to sell F1 to people who are not really interested in F1 or even motorsport in general. F1 has gone from being hardcore music to light radiopop. On the other hand, it might not ever change...
But if not, I am sure there will be a new series, with drivers and teamowners that loves RACING!

[The First MH]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo
Damon Hill is absolutely partially right.

I am absolutely partially certain that is funny!

[madmac]

I think Damon is correct in this moment in F1 history. in the future (perhaps 10+ years) F1 will change, maybe the fans will turn of from the corporate clones and the manufactuers will loose interest then we may see a resurgance of the independants and "charcter" drivers. I may be right or wrong, but for now classic inter team rivalry's are very limited and that is not veryinteresting IMHO.

[gerry nassar]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo
Damon Hill is absolutely partially right. We only need to look beyond F1 to see this trend in sports. (Ronaldo and stupid Nike)
Howver, the beauty about F1, is that there 10s and 10s of other battles going on at any given time. Be it small or large. MS vs. JPM/JPM vs. RS/KR vs. DC/BAR vs. Jordan/Honda vs. Toyota/Bridges vs. Bibendum etc etc. U get the point......
High-profile, high-stakes, intra-team driver rivarly may very well be a thing of the past (but never say never) but that was usually a bonus for us fans. It never really was the main mantra of F1 IMO. The main point of F1 is for drivers in one team to beat drivers and cars of other teams. Lets not forget that some team owners frowned upon extreme driver team rivarly. So unfortunately we may lose a nice fringe benefit, but not all is lost......There are other things to like about F1.

Thats true - F1 has always been about 1 driver in 1 team beating another driver in another team. Up until 2002 - we usually had two teams battling it out - so it wasnt a big issue. Last year people (including myself) craved a real battle and would have been happy seeing one at Ferrari but it didnt happen. Hence the upheavel. Personally, I think if Maclaren and/or Williams take the fight to Ferrari this year - all this talk will cease.

[The First MH]

Gerry: do you think teams should be able to run different liveries?

[Bart]

Hill's comments, as quoted in the AtlasF1 article, are all over the place. I think the particular comment you quote is only partially true. The implication of his statement is that there are great drivers who are unable to join a particular team because there is already a great driver there. Where is the evidence of this? Ferrari is a special case, but only because of Michael Schumacher's contract -- after he retires I don't believe that they will have an all-powerful "#1 driver" in the sense that Michael is.

When Sir Frank Williams signed Ralf Schumacher, he believed that Ralf could be as good as his brother. When he signed Montoya, he belived that Montoya could be as good as Michael too (nobody at BMW said "I'm sorry, you can't sign JPM; he's too good and might beat our golden boy Ralf"). So if the Williams pairing is not of the Senna/Prost or Mansell/Piquet calibre, it is not because of corporate dealings, but simply because they haven't fulfilled their expectations. But if the Williams had been the dominant car in 2002, I think we would have drawn lots of comparisons between last year and 1988. BMW were undoubtedly unhappy about the incident at Indianapolis, but they didn't fire anyone over it, and I don't think the Williams drivers will be banned from racing each other in future as a result. Similarly, what did Ferrari make of Schumacher's rantings at DC after Spa in 1999(? The one where he drove into the back of DC in the rain)? Did Luca di Montezemelo say "We can't have this guy representing us; he has a bit of a temper." Of course not!

It's true that you can't have a Michael/JPM pairing, but that's because Michael won't allow it. A JV/JPM pairing would be quite possible if the game of musical contracts came up at the right time and the prices were right.

[bear]

It's true that you can't have a Michael/JPM pairing, but that's because Michael won't allow it. A JV/JPM pairing would be quite possible if the game of musical contracts came up at the right time and the prices were right.

A JV/Montoya pairing, sounds good to me.

Mark

[gerry nassar]

Bart - good post. BTW - That incident was Spa98.

First MH - Thats an interesting question. In respect to the marketing issue - it may be good - say (and this will never happen) - two Ferrari drivers - one in the Malbaro Ferrari and the other in the Shell Ferrari - im sure it would be easier seeing them battle it out. However I just dont see it happening - and despite the liveries - they are still in the same team.

Back in 99 - had BAR raced as 555 and Lucky Strike - they both still would have been racing for BAR. Had JV battled for the championship and Zonta way behind - Zonta would have had to help JV win - and im sure Zontas car's sponsors wouldnt have been too happy had Zonta needed to lose the lead to his teamate.

But Im not against different liveries - just not overly for it either.

[JForce]

Is Damon Hill right?

Damon Hill is never right.

[Racer Joe]

Is Damon right? Yes I think he is.

But he is merely characterising a well known problem from his point of view.

The only thought that crossed my mind as I was reading his comments is what can we do about it? And Damon Hill didn't help me with that.

[baddog]

damon doesnt realise that his hiring was an expression of this (along with the pleasing of the british public and media)... or does he think williams thought he was the second best driver on the market in 93 lol...

he was hired because they needed a solid nr 2 to prost. as it is he turned out to be a bit better than that, but that wasnt the plan was it?

Shaun

[Clone]

Originally posted by baddog
damon doesnt realise that his hiring was an expression of this (along with the pleasing of the british public and media)... or does he think williams thought he was the second best driver on the market in 93 lol...

Hmmm, obviously he was a marketing turn off after his championship winning year.

[baddog]

lol he was marked to be sacked before he ever looked like winning the championship (after his dismal 1995), in favour of the 'schumacher beater' frentzen

Shaun

[Todd]

JPM has his hands full with Half Schumacher. Why would a Michael/Monty pairing be any more interesting than Michael/Ruby?

[RiverRunner]

Originally posted by Todd
JPM has his hands full with Half Schumacher.

Which will be the only fun to watch next year.
I hope they take each other out another time or too.
Watching Head throw **** around is always entertaining.

As for Damon, I'd have to say that overall there has never been a trend to always have the two best drivers, but he may be correct in implying that one or two team are not gonna lay out 75 mil to pay the two top drivers in the game.

[Racer Joe]

Originally posted by RiverRunner


Which will be the only fun to watch next year.
I hope they take each other out another time or too.
Watching Head throw **** around is always entertaining.

As for Damon, I'd have to say that overall there has never been a trend to always have the two best drivers , but he may be correct in implying that one or two team are not gonna lay out 75 mil to pay the two top drivers in the game.

I agree. 1988 and 1989 was an anomaly more than anything else.

[B.Verkiler]

I think Hill see the pb is the wrong way.

It is not because of marketing that there is not another great pilot in the same team than Schumacher.

It is because they are not in the same team than Schumacher that buddies like him, Villeneuve and Montoya can have marketing value.

[Todd]

Originally posted by B.Verkiler
I think Hill see the pb is the wrong way.

It is not because of marketing that there is not another great pilot in the same team than Schumacher.

It is because they are not in the same team than Schumacher that buddies like him, Villeneuve and Montoya can have marketing value.

Absolutely. Rubens was the pick of the litter until he stepped into the same car as Michael. Now the same idiots that said he would beat Michael are saying that he is what is preventing a race within Ferrari. Ruby's performances at Jordan and Stewart make Villeneuve's BAR years look more like the work of a Yoong peer than a Schumacher rival. Schumacher isn't being protected. The myth that he might not be the best driver ever is being protected.

[RedFever]

bah, Barichello is a fast driver but he never gave the impression he would be a great driver, not even during his odd great performance while at Stewart. I always found any reference to Senna to be utterly offensive toward Ayrton. In other words, he never showed that talent that was obvious from day one, regardless of their results, in drivers like Schumi, Hakkinen and Ayrton, to limit it to the last 10-15 years. To me the idiots are the ones that ever expected an average driver like him to challenge a top driver like Michael. However, it would have been utterly interesting to see Mika and Michael with an F1-2002. It would have easily undermined the myth that Schumacher is the best driver of all times, thanks to winning 5 WDCs with fantastic cars, mediocre teammates, and having a level of total full support from his team that not even Prost and Senna ever experienced (I mean, teammates moving on the side to make him win or not passing him when his car is failing, like in Canada and France, if he was the best ever, he wouldn't need this extra help, would he?). Schumi is the best in F1 today, but Barichello wouldn't be a challenge also for Montoya, Raikkonen or Fisichella. Yes, 2-3 GPs a year, Rubens can be unbeatable in the right car, but he qualifies as a best of the rest...at best.

[B.Verkiler]

Thanks Redfever for illustrating my point.