188 replies to this topic

[Megatron]

Make no mistake about it, I am not a Michael Andretti fan. I once was, but for the last decade or so I haven't cheered much for or against him.

However, as his career "apparently" (hope he doesn't pull an Arie) comes to an end, he has had a career that was very good, but with a few ifs ands or buts, could have been legendary.

Some things were his fault, some others, some just bad luck or circumstances, but lets see:

CART

One championship. It amazes me how many times he finished just behind the champion. 1991 was his year, but there were years that should have been his, and odd things kept him from being a multiple champion.

Indy

He led what amounted to over two complete race distances and never won. Always the odd failure, incident, or something or other kept him out.

F1

Yes, he didn't live in Europe and I don't think he ever really wanted F1 as much as the media and his father did, but perhaps Monza, his final start, gave us a glimpse of what could have been had he been dedicated to the team and the team dedicated to him. As far back as 1986, he was offered F1 drives. Ferrari offered him a seat for Berger in 1989, Benetton for Nanni in 1990, but it wasn't until 1993 that he finally took an ill fated offer from McLaren. Fairly quick in testing but rarely around when it counted.

Le Mans

1988 was in the era of Group C and the Andretti trio of John, Michael, and Mario were playing the fuel game. They were way up in terms of milage and would have most likely won (remember the lone good Jaguar's transmission was shot, any pressure and they would have broke), but for a cyclinder misfiring. Still finishing sixth, the ever-reliable Porsche flat six lets the Andrettis down.


Racing is always full of "ifs ands and buts" but in the case of Michael Andretti, it seems as if there are quite a few. A good career certainly, but for a wrong move here, a pinch of luck there, or something coming close to decent relaibility, we could be talking about serious records.

Your thoughts on Michael?

[Joe Fan]

I think he will be worthy of induction into the motorsports hall of fame for his career in North America because he is afterall one of the most winningest CART drivers of all-time. Unfortunately many on the other side of the Atlantic view him differently and unfairly as a failure in Formula One. He needed to go to Formula One much earlier in his career and he also needed to play the policial game better than he did. I also think his famous last name hurt him as much as it helped him.

[lustigson]

It seems funny that all Andretti's are more-or-less-legendary racing drivers, but none have been really up there with the best. Mario and Michael have had quite a load of bad luck or whatever you want to call it. Weird.

However, they'll have another shot in about five years: Michael's son Marco is on his way up, isn't he?

[Henri Greuter]

No matter what, but I rate Michael A. as a better driver than his "buddy" Al Jnr despite Al has more titles and Indy's to boost.
Al "walked into the indy's", one of them because Michael's umpteent misfortune.

And perhaps it opens yet another can of worms but going to mcLaren, just after they lost factory backing, teaming up with Senna and so on...
Man, there were better times to join mcLaren.
Even if he had given his full commitment to the job, McLaren definitely wasn't the team to be with in '93, even Senna demanded a king's ransom for that privilege....
Bye Mike, thanks for the memories, Lacking an Indy victory doesn't tarnish your carreer for me.


Henri Greuter

[KWSN - DSM]

Michael Andretti was a good driver, never a great driver.

When a career is filled with if's, but's and maybe's - Then it can not be written down to bad luck. The finger of blame have to point at the driver. If a car keeps breaking under you, then you drive it too hard. I am a firm believer in "mechanical emphathy", some drivers have it, some have not.

Michael Andretti did not, thus he had to many "unlucky moments".

[mhferrari]

Luck does play a big role in motorsports.

One thing that cannot be doubted is Michael's talent. Of course not the greatest of all time, but a driver who should not be dismissed as often as he is.

Hopefully he will have better luck at Indy as a team owner.

Lustigson, I think Marco Andretti is on his way up. A third-generation Andretti? I'll bet he'll be faster than A.J. Foyt IV.

[Ross Stonefeld]

His is a career that isnt based on stats but viewing. The guy never won Indy, most fans from this point on would say that means he wasnt that good. But if you watched the race you'd see he passed 5 cars on the opening lap, including race winner De Ferran by turn 2, and led 20ish laps and easily could have been there at the end.

[AndreasF1]

Lustigson wrote:
It seems funny that all Andretti's are more-or-less-legendary racing drivers, but none have been really up there with the best.
___
True, not the very best in a single category, Mario however. is one of tha last remaining icons of Motorsports that had success in almost all major forms of Motorracing including F1, Cart, Nascar, Sprint cars etc... He is probably one of the very best allrounders ever, thus his legendary status as a racing driver.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by AndreasF1
Lustigson wrote:
It seems funny that all Andretti's are more-or-less-legendary racing drivers, but none have been really up there with the best.
___
True, not the very best in a single category, Mario however. is one of tha last remaining icons of Motorsports that had success in almost all major forms of Motorracing including F1, Cart, Nascar, Sprint cars etc... He is probably one of the very best allrounders ever, thus his legendary status as a racing driver.

I think a good case can be made for Mario being one of the best F1 drivers of the 1970s. Perhaps the best in 77 and 78. While that, to me, does not elevate him to the very highest echelons, it does take him well above Michael.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by lustigson
It seems funny that all Andretti's are more-or-less-legendary racing drivers, but none have been really up there with the best.

I am afraid that I have to take great EXCEPTION to that statement. Mario was an exceptionally talented, skilled, and verstile Racer of the highest degree. Perhaps only AJ and Al Senior were in his league with Gurney, Ruby, and Clark being the others I would lump in that group.

I have always thought a great deal of Michael. I followed him in Super Vee and Atlantic where he certainly demonstrated his talent. In the CART era, Michael was always one of those whose eye you kept an eye on because it seemed he was always capable of getting into the fight. Miachael was one the first names I always looked for on the qualifying and results lists. Had the CART-IRL split no deprived him of a number of years at the Speedway, who knows? Such is Life, unfortunately.

So, in my view, I place both Mario AND Michael right up there -- and in that order, incidentially. However, I think Michael will give Penske and Ganassi and real run for the money. As Mario observed recently, that was really Michael's interest all along anyway, the in's & out's of the racing game and not just the driving, which was Mario's primary focus.

Mario is one of the Greatest Racers to ever put his butt in a racing car in my opinion, regardless of era, Period. Certainly one helluva lot better than some that get offered up for that distinction.

[Ruairidh]

Originally posted by Don Capps


Mario was an exceptionally talented, skilled, and verstile Racer of the highest degree. Perhaps only AJ and Al Senior were in his league with Gurney, Ruby, and Clark being the others I would lump in that group.

Don, I'm interested. Who else would you place in that group? My personal "highest" group includes Jimmy, Fangio, Moss and Senna (and JYS when I'm not irritated by him) but none of the others you mention. Mario - for whom I have the deepest personal regard (and I can remember living and dying the 76-77-78 seasons with him and Team Lotus) doesn't quite make it into that group for me - but doesn't fall far short.

Michael, I have to admit, doesn't really get onto my radar screen - but that could be because I didn't focus on his career.

You know I've just finished Michael Lewis' "Moneyball". Now for anyone who doesn't follow baseball I doubt this will make sense, but essentially it details the way in which the Oakland A's apply statistical information to predict and value individual talent and - this is the important element - to predict that individual talents contribution to the ultimate team performance over a season.

Point is that while Sabermetrics were mentioned in an earlier thread as a way of assessing the relative greatness of seasons, I wonder whether we keep enough data about drivers to be able to compare the relative merits of careers.

Again, if you are not a baseball fan I'm sure you will poo-poo this. However baseball is sucessfully breaking down the separate elements of an individuals contribution to a composite team performance and finding ways to statistically record and value those so that the language of comparison is enriched. I wonder if that has application to motor racing?

Whew - sorry 'bout the length of this but I've been mulling this over since finishing Lewis' book on my Friday night flight.

[byrkus]

I watched the re-run of Indy 500 yesterday night (at nearly midnight!! ), and German Eurosport commentator said something like 'well, he never won at Indianapolis; however, he won at Toronto 7 times ' That's also what makes him quite a racing driver.

(I bet he would give away all his Toronto wins for just one Indy... )

[Don Capps]

Baseball is one of those sports that just seems perfect for statistics. I still have all my old Bob James' Abstracts and currently lugging the new edition of his Historical Abstract with me whenever I hit the road.

Alas, motor racing is perhaps less well suited for this sort of thing, perhaps the recent years in F1 being an exception. I also rather dislike "ranking" and "rating" drivers since the ranking are almost inevitably based on statistics which often don't tell the tale in motor racing.

My personal Pantheon is cluttered with no end of varied sorts of folks, some whom I just like as a person as well as racer -- Kyle Petty being an excellent example. To me, Kyle Petty is an exceptional person and whatever his performance on the track -- he recently said that he was more of "....a mobile chicane lately..." -- I always "root" for him. There are others, naturally.

I tend to be "inclusive" and therefore throw out any of the rational, cold-blooded analysis which many use for this sort of process and which I think is ruining much of the enjoyment of being a racing historian in my strong, unasked for opinion.

Examples of some of those residing in my personal Patheon: Jimmy Murphy, Ralph De Palma, Dario Resta, Tommy Milton, Wilbur Shaw, Tazio Nuvolari, Tim Flock, Ted Horn, Richard Petty, David Pearson, John Fitch, Dale Earnhardt, Jochen Rindt, Keke Rosberg, Emerson Fittipaldi, Pete Revson, Mark Donohue, Alberto Ascari, Gigi Villoresi, Walt Hansgen, Johnny Servoz-Gavin, Jacky Ickx, Masten Gregory, Pedro Rodriguez, Peter Arundell, Mike Spence, Jackie Stewart, Maurice Trintignant, Louis Chiron, Louis Rosier, Peter Collins, Phil Hill, Graham Hill, Damon Hill, and on and on and on........ Of the recent sorts, Mark Webber, Carlo Fisichello, Kurt Busch, Ryan Newman, and Junior to name a few.

Top 10? In my view, no such thing. Top 100? Ditto. I would be hard-pressed to name a top 1000 since there might be someone truly Worthy that might be omitted. Naturally, I am probably quite alone in this way of thinking, but that has never deterred me before.....

[Ralliart]

Tim Considine's book on American GP drivers covers the Michael-to-GP saga in great detail but an article that appeared in the L.A. Times four days ago is also illuminatory re: his impending retirement and his attitude towards racing vis-a-vis the business end. Excerpts include:
11 May 2003 qualifying: "Those four laps just made me more convinced that I should step away from the cockpit. (With winds gusting at more than 30 mph as he was qualifying, Andretti said it was the worst feeling he has had in 14 years there). "It was unbelievable. It was the most eventful four laps I've ever had around this place. It's days like that that make me glad I'm retiring."
Retirement (comments by Mario): "When I first heard from Michael that he was going to stop racing, I was upset. I felt cheated. Watching Michael race has always been a thrill for me; sort of a vicarious one. I felt like I was riding with him and now that's going to be gone. But I can't say I am suprised. Michael has never had the passion for racing that I have. He has always looked more toward the business side; something I hated. I think he will be a great team owner because that is the way he thinks. Back when we first started racing together, he enjoyed more talking with the accountants than he did about racing. We just had totally different ways of looking at things."

[Ray Bell]

Mario and Michael, what to say?

While some focus on Mario's title, his years at Lotus, I see a different Mario... the Mario that arrived on pole position the first time he entered a Grand Prix; the Mario who was able to go from one team to another and do justice to the equipment put under him; the Mario that arrived at Indy with a big reputation and lived up to it; the Mario who drove everything with distinction.

Right up there, and still up there in his final years too.

To be honest, when I first heard of Michael going to Le Mans with Mario, I'd never heard of him racing at all and I thought he must have been trading heavily on his father's name and reputation. But into the nineties we started to get CART races live here, then I saw another Michael. Alongside his father in the Newman Haas team, he was a racer of the first order and always willing to have a go.

Yes, 'have a go'... that's a feature that a driver needs to have if he's to get my respect. And there he was, outbraking the best of them, hanging the rear wheels out to the walls and winning well deserved victories on a wide range of CART circuits.

I was utterly disappointed with his time at McLaren, but there was much against him, as has already been noted in this thread. Being there the wrong year is an important point, as the focus must surely have been on giving Senna the very best to keep the McLaren name to the forefront during a year when things were never going to go their way.

Michael's return to CART at Surfers Paradise in the Reynard was a fantastic effort, almost a defining moment. And now you tell me that he was 'more interested in the business side of things'?

Well, I can see him becoming bigger than Rahal, Ganassi, Penske, Hall and Haas if that's the case. I just hope he gets drivers as good as he is and was. He'll apparently be able to use them!

[Jack-the-Lad]

I agree wholeheartedly with Don. Without doubt, Mario was one of the finest all-around drivers of all time. He won consistently and convincingly in virtually every type of car and on virtually every type of track. I would have to say, too, that his opposition consisted the best generation of driving talent. I would rank him at the top along with Gurney, Foyt and Clark, as a true natural talent, someone who raced because he loved to race. I really don't think the money or the fame motivated him all that much. Simply a rare talent.

I feel fortunate to have met him and to have seen him race in F1, sportscars, Indy cars and dirt cars.


Jack

[Megatron]

What I found so great about Mario is that he could just hop in a car and win against the regulars.

Look at the Daytona 500. Despite not being a "good ol boy" and driving number 2 to Lorenzen, he chases Fred down after a dubious long pit stop and wins easily.

Two years later, he outguns the Lotus hotshots at Watkins Glen in an old Lotus 49 and takes pole in his first GP start.

At the time of his Lotus championship, he was the highest paid driver in F1, and wanted in demand on both sides of the Atlantic.

Showing that a couple of years in terrible Lotus cars and Alfa Romeo were to blame, not him, he qualified on pole in Monza in 1982 and then outqualified Tambay again in the season ender in Las Vegas.

For me personally, he lived the American dream. I always admired him because he represented the United States well wherever he went.

Many mocked his pace against David Brabham and Jan Magnasun at Le Mans in 2000, but also failed to realize that he was still faster than any other Panoz driver in a field of five LMP01s despite limited testing.

Having just turned a lap at 225 MPH early in the month, a speed that easily would have put him in the show (though lets not get into bump/fill day), he again showed that he still had it.

He may never win Le Mans, but he won everything else and did it convincingly.

[Vicuna]

Allow me to be blunt.

The main difference between Mario and Michael was horsepower between the ears.

Ronald offered to send engineers back to USA on Concorde with to do all the de briefs.

He wasn't interested.

He had another problem that shared his surname. Ronald employed a woman to take her shopping - to GET RID OF HER!

Michael was fast and some of his times relative to Senna were impressive.

But he was/is thick.

Mario is sharp and was hungry.

The boy had everything handed to him on a plate.

[Megatron]

Ron wouldn't be the first to have problems with the first wife of Michael.

Michael's problem was that he watched Mario win the world championship living in the states in 1978 and thought he could do it too.

Audi are set to debut a coupe in 2004 or 2005 at Le Mans, and one of their main sponsors is Infineon, a company (one of many) that Mario is a spokesman for. Perhaps...

[Geza Sury]

Does everyone know if Michael Andretti speaks any Italian? And what about his son, Marco?

[Lee Nicolle]

Lol, I think even I could have done a better job in the #7 car at McLaren in '93. And I'm not even a racing driver let alone a champion like Michael Andretti.

That I doubt. While Michael never quite made the cut he was still a very good operator but was never the best or probably never as good as Mario at his peak. Though he was very good at times.

[Michael Ferner]

I mean after your 9th retirement or whatever, I'd conciously try to stay atleast 20 feet away from all cars on my 10th try.

Sure, and that's why you'd done a better job than Michael. I'm impressed. Can I hire you to drive my car?

[rallen]

I was utterly disappointed with his time at McLaren, but there was much against him, as has already been noted in this thread. Being there the wrong year is an important point, as the focus must surely have been on giving Senna the very best to keep the McLaren name to the forefront during a year when things were never going to go their way.

I wanted the 1993 season very closely and even if the team was geared around Senna, it was all Michael's own fault he failed, just based on driving he kept crashing into cars trying to overtake - surely the most basic thing about motor racing wether Cart or F1 (perhaps he should have been a dragster racer if he can drive fast but only in a straight line)

Race 1 - South Africa - he drove into a Minardi and lost a wheel,
Race 2 - Brazil - Drove straight into Berger at the first corner (watch the footage, what is he doing? its not even an overtake!?)
Race 3 - Europe - Crashed into Wendlinger trying to overtake him

etc etc, he didn't even have the time to have mechanical failures most of the time, he drove into someone first!

[Chezrome]

I wanted the 1993 season very closely and even if the team was geared around Senna, it was all Michael's own fault he failed, just based on driving he kept crashing into cars trying to overtake - surely the most basic thing about motor racing wether Cart or F1 (perhaps he should have been a dragster racer if he can drive fast but only in a straight line)

Race 1 - South Africa - he drove into a Minardi and lost a wheel,
Race 2 - Brazil - Drove straight into Berger at the first corner (watch the footage, what is he doing? its not even an overtake!?)
Race 3 - Europe - Crashed into Wendlinger trying to overtake him

etc etc, he didn't even have the time to have mechanical failures most of the time, he drove into someone first!

It's been said before, but I'd say it again. Michael was without purpose that year. There was an engineer who liked Michael and Senna also tried to help him, by watching his telemetry and so forth. There's a piece on film, I think I remember, that this said engineer and Senna are watching Michaels telemetry. They are both astonished. 'Look, he takes that corner differently every time. He brakes here, there, steers in there, blabla...' It's on Youtube, somewhere, I think.

My impression is that Michael was having two thoughts at the same time. He wanted to drive Formula 1... and he didn't. He wanted to commit... and he didn't. It showed in his driving.

[JohnH]

There's a piece on film, I think I remember, that this said engineer and Senna are watching Michaels telemetry. They are both astonished. 'Look, he takes that corner differently every time. He brakes here, there, steers in there, blabla...' It's on Youtube, somewhere, I think.

Link? Looked but no such film could be found.

[rallen]

There's a piece on film, I think I remember, that this said engineer and Senna are watching Michaels telemetry. They are both astonished. 'Look, he takes that corner differently every time. He brakes here, there, steers in there, blabla...' It's on Youtube, somewhere, I think.

Yes, wasn't that from th BBC documentry where they followed McLaren for the whole of the 1993 season? it was amazing, I would love a copy of that!

[Ross Stonefeld]

What was interesting was when Michael was faster than the test driver at Silverstone and the slower driver was struggling to accept there wasn't something wrong with the car.

[Chezrome]

Yes, wasn't that from th BBC documentry where they followed McLaren for the whole of the 1993 season? it was amazing, I would love a copy of that!

Exactly, it was that program. I saw a unabridged version a couple of years ago at the BBC, and abridged versions on the internet.

[stuartbrs]

What was interesting was when Michael was faster than the test driver at Silverstone and the slower driver was struggling to accept there wasn't something wrong with the car.

Yeah, its a good part of the film, the slower driver being Mika Hakkinen.

The other bit of the film that stands out is when Michael tries a development Ford V8 and said he couldnt really feel any difference when asked by the engineers. Senna, however, went on and on about all the differences he could feel with the new engine.

[Marc Sproule]

I think this photo illustrates what a number of people have said in this thread. I saw Mikey in testing many times, including his first at Laguna Seca.

In that test he was running very closely to the wall exiting what was then Turn 9...the old circuit. During a stop to make some adjustments on the car, crew chief Barry Green asked him to leave a little more room off the wall. Mikey promptly white-walled it on the next lap. No damage but it said volumes about his approach.

As for this pic, there is a description and then a bit more in my comment under it....

http://www.flickr.co...@N03/4320764873

[Ray Bell]

Doing a 'Villeneuve'?

I guess if you're serious you have to try it sometimes...

[Marc Sproule]

I saw Gilles in an Atlantic car for the first time in '75. Saw 3 races that year and then all of the rest of his Atlantic career the next two seasons.

If asked to compare others I saw on a regular basis to Gilles I'd go with Montoya, Zanardi and Rosberg in that order, behind Gilles only by millimeters when it came to car control.

Mikey was good, very good, but not quite in the same class as Gilles or the others.

In the photo I linked to above Mikey was doing something that was physically impossible. No one ever went through that corner flat stick. Period. End of story.

But Mikey had to try.

Gilles wouldn't have tried. He knew what his limits were. He knew those limits because he tested them but in a way that he knew he could get away with.

The photo in the link below is a perfect example of that. It's not a great photo by any means, but it is a classic example of how Gilles went about doing things.

http://www.flickr.co...@N03/4385929467

[David McKinney]

If asked to compare others I saw on a regular basis to Gilles I'd go with Montoya, Zanardi and Rosberg in that order, behind Gilles only by millimeters when it came to car control.

I find this comment, from such an obviously seasoned observer, very interesting

[Ross Stonefeld]

Michael Andretti is/was a seriously good driver. He was one of the best Americans in a very long time. Even Montoya rated and respected him and they had more than a few on-track moments. The modern equivalent of the Laguna testing incident is when he kept going on a wearing tire at Long Beach in 1998 until it blew going down the kinked front straight. They lost a lot of points that season to incidents like that. Yet they weren't what you'd call ill-advised, the guy was just going for it. He wasn't reckless but he never stopped pushing.

Which is what made his F1 year so weird.

I think if he wasn't Michael ANDRETTI we would have viewed him much differently. But he had to live up to his father's CV but perhaps more challenging, his father's aura. Michael has never been a fan favourite.

[BorderReiver]

Personally I rate Michael Andretti as a better driver than some he competed against and, at least according to the record books, was beaten by. I agree with Ross that growing up as Mario's son is never, ever going to be an easy pitch. If you look at what he did acheive though, and the manner in which he acheived it . . . well there's nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of there and his statistical freak of never winning at Indy is much like Jim Clark's lack of success at Monaco, ie. so much of an outlier as to not really impact on their reputations as a driver.

His F1 career (if it can even be called that) was spectacularly misguided true, and he did himself absolutely no favours in the manner he took the job on, but I also remember him getting involved in accidents that weren't of his own making and occasionally there were glimmers of something very special through the circumstances.

Ultimately, if you asked me to create a fantasy CART team with drivers at their peak I'd offer Andretti a seat long before I'd pick up the phone for Unser Jr, Luyendyk or Rahal.

Edited by BorderReiver, 01 May 2010 - 15:16.

[Bob Riebe]

Lustigson wrote:
It seems funny that all Andretti's are more-or-less-legendary racing drivers, but none have been really up there with the best.
___
True, not the very best in a single category, Mario however. is one of tha last remaining icons of Motorsports that had success in almost all major forms of Motorracing including F1, Cart, Nascar, Sprint cars etc... He is probably one of the very best allrounders ever, thus his legendary status as a racing driver.

I would say that alone makes Mario one of the best.
What European driver/s can put up such statistics?

[Lee Nicolle]

I would say that alone makes Mario one of the best.
What European driver/s can put up such statistics?

How many Euro drivers have had the opportunity to drive Nascar and Sprinters etc until very recent years.

[Jim Thurman]

Michael Andretti is/was a seriously good driver. He was one of the best Americans in a very long time. Even Montoya rated and respected him and they had more than a few on-track moments. The modern equivalent of the Laguna testing incident is when he kept going on a wearing tire at Long Beach in 1998 until it blew going down the kinked front straight. They lost a lot of points that season to incidents like that. Yet they weren't what you'd call ill-advised, the guy was just going for it. He wasn't reckless but he never stopped pushing.

Which is what made his F1 year so weird.

I think if he wasn't Michael ANDRETTI we would have viewed him much differently. But he had to live up to his father's CV but perhaps more challenging, his father's aura. Michael has never been a fan favourite.

He was his own worst enemy. Many fans, myself included, could not warm to him for his constant whining and bitching. Nothing was ever his fault, no matter if it was clearly his mistake or error. Which is not to say he wasn't/couldn't be seriously fast But, rather than never stopped pushing, to me, it WAS reckless...more like brick stupid at times. He pushed when he shouldn't have and broke a lot, even more than Mario did Remember, for example, at Detroit - when Mario ran into the back of the safety truck. Michael ran into Mario even later, something Bobby Rahal found hilarious

I will admit that towards the end of his career, he finally matured enough and seemed to have mellowed as a person that I warmed to him.

The caveat here is that I'm not a fan of unthinking drivers. I would view him the same no matter what the last name was.

I will agree that his time in F1 is probably what makes many around the world look at him as an underachiever or overrated, but then again many of those same folks don't acknoweldge any form of racing that isn't F1, so...

Edited by Jim Thurman, 02 May 2010 - 17:31.

[Marc Sproule]

A number of Mikey pics, from various years and in different cars...

Formula Atlantic...'82
http://www.flickr.co...57623186773769/

http://www.flickr.co...57623186773769/

Champ Cars.....

http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/
http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/
http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/
http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/
http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/
http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/

Eventually there will be a lot more.

[Marc Sproule]

My flickr stats tell me that some image views have been coming from this thread and since it's been over two years since my last post here there's been some Mikey additions to my Indy Car set.....

http://www.flickr.co...57623324227456/

All my sets....including one I created recently for images of Mario......

http://www.flickr.co...81980@N03/sets/

[RonPohl]

While I was never a big fan of Michael the driver, his accomplishments as a racing businessman since retiring have been impressive. In addition to running his indycar team, he is becoming a race promoter. Perhaps the best is yet to come for him.

[URY914]

Here is an article by Gordon Kirby that I found insightful. Michael and Al Jr. speaking about their F1 experiences. They both say some things that maybe no one has heard before.

http://gordonkirby.c...t_is_no361.html



"Al Jr. and Michael both had brushes with Formula One in 1992 and '93 respectively and their experiences are instructive for any American hoping to make it to F1. Michael drove for McLaren in '93, of course, beside Ayrton Senna when McLaren was at a comparatively low ebb with Ford/Cosworth engines as a stopgap after a brace of successful years with Honda engines.

"It was the worst time of my career," Michael declares. "It was a program that was destined to fail from day one. I could write a book about it. It was a joke. I think I matured and I think I learned a lot about people and how dishonest people can be. I learned a lot about life. I grew up that year. I went in very naive and I came out a lot more aware of the real world. From that standpoint I think it was very good, but other than that it just about ruined my career."

Al Jr. tested for a few days with Williams in Portugal in '92 and had a seat-fitting at Benetton before rejecting Benetton boss Tom Walkinshaw's offer of less than half the money he was making in Indy cars.

"I felt exactly the way Michael feels about it," Al says. "I tested with Williams for a week in Portugal. Frank was giving me the indication that he truly wanted me, but from the time I landed Patrick Head was just rude."

Unser was half a second quicker than Riccardo Patrese and Damon Hill and flew back to England to talk terms.

"We went into Frank's office and I said, 'Let's do a deal.' And he said, 'We were only interested in you. We never said anything about having you as a driver.' Patrick was sitting there and he just instantly stood up and said, 'Time to go.' He walked me to the door and shut the door behind me. And that was it. "

[Tim Murray]

Here's another verdict on the Unser test:

Williams apparently were not impressed by Al Jr - from Ask Nigel last week re Michael Andretti:

If Michael's season in F1 undoubtedly affected European team owners' opinions of American drivers, so also - albeit less overtly - did Al Unser Jr's test with Williams at Estoril in '91. Again, at the time Al was regarded as one of the real hotshoes in CART, but his run in the Williams was described by one team member as, "Embarrassing, to be honest. For a start, he clearly wasn't anything like fit enough. After a few laps in the car, he could hardly move his head." And were his times slow? I asked. "Not as quick as that..." came the answer.

Guess he needed to prepare more for it.

However, remember the class way he handled defeat at Indy in 1989, when Emmo simply took him out with about 3 laps to go...Autosport gave him the Sportsman of the Year award for his not kicking up a stink.

[Ross Stonefeld]

There seems to be a cultural clash not between American drivers, but drivers coming out of American racing. You hear similar complaints/issues from Bourdais/Zanardi/Da Matta who came over from CART/Indy.

I think there are two main points of friction.

The F1 teams seem to treat a CART champion like some guy out of F3/F3000/GP2 who should be grateful to be there, whereas the CART guy is used to being treated like a valued member of the team. Especially when they tend to have won the championship and a bunch of races.

Another area, though perhaps not as big an issue, is that guys coming over from America get used to cars that are practical. They don't chase perfect setups and weird rideheights dictated by computer. They aim for cars that are usable. I didn't appreciate this angle until I heard Bourdais early in his Toro Rosso career basically saying to the team in practice "let's quit fiddling with the floor and just go do laps". I think it was Malaysia 2008, so a race or two into his F1 experience.

But there are also fundamental cultural differences. Having lived in the UK for a solid 7 years and been around some racing people, I now wonder if a lot of the complaints from young American racers about how difficult Europe is personally, comes down to them not understanding the way people interact. If you're not used to British banter you can easily take it the wrong way, likewise you can think the French actually do hate Americans, that the Germans and English are ready to kill each other, that no one takes the Italians or Spanish seriously, etc.

[kayemod]

Here's another verdict on the Unser test:

...his run in the Williams was described by one team member as, "Embarrassing, to be honest. For a start, he clearly wasn't anything like fit enough. After a few laps in the car, he could hardly move his head." And were his times slow? I asked. "Not as quick as that..." came the answer.

A friend, sadly no longer with us, was working for Williams at the time. He told me that someone else in the team, possibly a mechanic, took the car out for a few warm-up laps before Al Jr arrived, the way he told it, his time was almost as good as anything Unser managed. That's not really to decry Al Jr though, the gulf between F1 and Cart/Indy racing is huge, but why do a few, I'm thinking in particular of Rick Mears, seem to have no problem at all adapting, Rick never moved beyond testing, but it seems he could have won races. What makes some top US drivers unable to drive or even test competitively in F1? It's a long time ago, but Bobby Unser didn't impress anyone when he had a go, and of course there have been others.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Late 80s/pre-Mansell Indycar may not have been the glory years, but Unser wasn't a club racer. So unless the 'mechanic' was a former F3 champ it seems unlikely he's going as quick as Unser.

Side topic: When did the habit of letting mechanics do warm-up laps go out of fashion

[kayemod]

Here is an article by Gordon Kirby that I found insightful. Michael and Al Jr. speaking about their F1 experiences. They both say some things that maybe no one has heard before.

http://gordonkirby.c...t_is_no361.html

I've never thought that Gordon Kirby was exactly an impartial observer where F1 is concerned, it's very obvious what market that article was written for. Some of Michael Andretti's claims though, "Within a tenth of Ayrton" and "I was always faster than Mika in testing" etc, I don't think any comment on that is needed. Again, it's going to sound as if I'm rubbishing Michael which isn't my intention, not outside F1 anyway, but in that BBC film about the McLaren team, Ayrton said that MA's telemetry showed that his driving was all over the place, didn't he say things like "He never takes the same line twice"?

[E1pix]

There were two big, interchangeable parts that led to Michael's failure in F1.

Part 1) Treating his Big Chance as an arrive-and-driver instead of being a real, hands-on part of the team;

Part 2) Sandy.

[kayemod]

And, there's a part 3 complacency, he underestimated the challenge, something Mario understood only too well.

I know that this is going to sound anti-American, not the meaning I want to convey, and I'm not knocking US racing in general, but I think that Mark Donohue once described much of it as "Like playing tennis with your wife". I think that Michael Andretti had the talent, but he needed to move up a gear, and apparently, he just couldn't do it.

[D-Type]

In fairness to Michael, his teammates at McLaren were Ayrton Senna, one of the most talented and probably the most committed drivers ever and Mika Hakkinen who went on to be a major force winning a World Championship. In that company he needed a combination of skill and 100% commitment and I think that although the skill was [probably] there the commitment probably wasn't due to a combination of the various factors mentioned.

In terms of the "Father and son" syndrome, he gives me the impression that rather than being a son who wanted to outdo his father he was more a son who saw what his father had done and achieved, liked what he saw and wanted some of it ie he wasn't hungry enough. He certainly wasn't as hungry as Hakkinen.