34 replies to this topic

[Jhope]

I remember after the 1999 Monaco GP, where Ferrari scored a fantastic 1-2, Michael blurted out this beauty:

"I think this may be Ferrari's first one-two."

Michael is not known for his knowledge of F1's heritage, and nor does he seem to care about it when asked.

Does anyone know of any current or former F1/GP drivers who do/did have a grasp on F1's heritage, respect it, and actually think it's an important part of being a GP driver.

David Coulthard comes to mind, as does Rubens Barichello, Jean Alesi, Johnny Herbert and Mark Webber.


Anyone else?








I know this is a thread related to history. But I believe this topic belongs here, as it relates to modern drivers as well as drivers from the past.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Jhope
and actually think it's an important part of being a GP driver.

David Coulthard comes to mind, as does Rubens Barichello, Jean Alesi, Johnny Herbert and Mark Webber.

How do you know that they 'think it's an important part of being a GP driver.'?

And who really cares?

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

Yeah...MS is a weird one that way...
I believe his childhood heroes were footballers, specifically Toni Schumacher (legendary goalie for Germany).
Remember that Germany's F1 heritage driver-wise was pretty meagre since WWII anyways.
But in my eyes, a driver's (or footballer or tennis player) knowledge of past heritage is not important really.

[TAB666]

Originally posted by Jhope
I remember after the 1999 Monaco GP, where Ferrari scored a fantastic 1-2, Michael blurted out this beauty:

"I think this may be Ferrari's first one-two."

Michael is not known for his knowledge of F1's heritage, and nor does he seem to care about it when asked.

Could this perhaps be MS refering to the fact that since 1950 Ferrari had never won a 1-2 at Monacos GP!

[Williams]

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I think the people who put all of their time and energy into driving cars fast for a living are not necessarily the same people who take a strong interest in sports history. I think that comes a bit later in life when they have more time on their hands and have something to be nostalgic about. I think most active professional drivers are living to intensely in the now to have much time for looking backwards.

Team owners are much the same way. Frank Williams once said that "you never stop and you never look back". Enzo Ferrari used to have no compunctions about breaking up last year's beautiful race cars and heaving them in the scrap pile. The perspective of people inside the sport and outside the sport is totally different.

I believe Michael's exact words were "I don't know if Ferrari have ever had a 1-2 before...". Hard to know if he was referring to a 1-2 at Monaco, but I'm sure that a few jaws dropped when he uttered the statement.

I think Enzo would have forgiven his for his lapse however, as that Sunday he became the winningest ever Ferrari driver.

[boyRacer]

Its the same for any sport... i dont think most of them memorize statistics or daydream about such things all day.

Only the people who arent doing it for a living fantasize over them.

[Williams]

Here's a passage from one of my favourite F1 books, "Racers" by Richard Williams, that I think strikes exactly the right note on this topic. The setting is the 1996 Argentinian Grand Prix.

On Sunday, an hour before the race, the organizers unveiled a plaque to Fangio at the circuit, which is named after his friend and rival Oscar Galvez. Galvez was a gifted driver who won many of the long-distance races and com­peted brilliantly against visiting European stars in Argentina but who remained behind when Fangio went off to make his reputation in Europe. To open the ceremony another of Fangio’s cars, the Mercedes W196 of 1954-55, was pushed silently down the main straight and past the grandstand by four mechanics in spotless white overalls decorated with the manufacturer’s three-pointed star. The car, a sister of the one driven by Moss at Melbourne a month earlier, certainly looked very striking and it seemed a pity that they didn’t fire up the straight-eight engine and perhaps ask José Froilán Gonzalez, Fangio’s contemporary and fellow countryman, to drive a lap or two in it. But somebody said that, as a sentimental gesture, the immaculate silver car would never be started again because they wanted Fangio to have been the last man to drive it; a bit like leaving Churchill’s War Room or Noel Coward’s study at his house in Jamaica the way they were, as if the occupant had just popped out.

Someone more cynical claimed that the thing simply wouldn’t run and, anyway, Gonzalez was stuck in the traffic jam outside the circuit. (When he eventually arrived it was hard to recognize the figure so familiar from the photographs of forty years earlier: he had lost several stone since the days when he overflowed the cockpit of his Ferrari and was known as the Pampas Bull.)

Alain Prost attended the little unveiling ceremony, as did Bernie Ecclestone, who is a romantic about motor racing underneath the surface and who saw Fangio drive many times in the Fifties. But none of the current drivers was there. They’re an unsentimental bunch, understandably enough, and tend to leave that sort of thing to the rest of us, but I thought they could have made an exception for the only man to win their championship five times. Senna, I felt, would have made the time to pay his respects, had he been alive, because he would have been aware of the special thread connecting him to the great man of a previous generation.

Still, I was glad that if one engine had to be running in the pits as Fangio’s old car was wheeled past, it should come from the McLaren pit, where the present-day Mercedes engineers were poring over their laptops and fine-tuning Coulthard’s car, oblivious to the little ceremony. Perhaps, after all, the man we were honouring would have preferred that. Life going on, work being done, a race to run.

[Rene]

Originally posted by boyRacer
Its the same for any sport... i dont think most of them memorize statistics or daydream about such things all day.

Only the people who arent doing it for a living fantasize over them.

I think you are wrong, in Canada many hockey players can recite much of the sports legandary past, the same goes for baseball, many players know the history of the sport....perhaps its because in Canada and the US, hockey and baseball for each is part of the national identity....where F1 racing, is really not part of the national identity of any country....
:

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by Rene


I think you are wrong, in Canada many hockey players can recite much of the sports legandary past, the same goes for baseball, many players know the history of the sport....perhaps its because in Canada and the US, hockey and baseball for each is part of the national identity....where F1 racing, is really not part of the national identity of any country....
:

True to an extent... but i dont think they memorize statistics... even moreso for Schumacher who wasn't exactly all that impressed by Ferrari's racing history.

[TAB666]

Originally posted by Williams

I believe Michael's exact words were "I don't know if Ferrari have ever had a 1-2 before...". Hard to know if he was referring to a 1-2 at Monaco, but I'm sure that a few jaws dropped when he uttered the statement.

I think Enzo would have forgiven his for his lapse however, as that Sunday he became the winningest ever Ferrari driver.

I truely belive he was refering to Monaco, reason behind this is that Schumacher and Irvine had a 1-2 in 98 IIRC

[Williams]

Originally posted by TAB666


I truely belive he was refering to Monaco, reason behind this is that Schumacher and Irvine had a 1-2 in 98 IIRC

Yes, your memory serves you correctly. That was at Monza '98. To answer Michael's question Ferrari has 1-2'd there 7 times (51,60,66,79,88,98,02, 1960 was a 1-2-3), the most recently himself and Rubens in 2002.

I hadn't thought about it until you brought it up, because in his book "Chasing the "Title" Nigel Roebuck goes medieval on Schumacher for asking the question. Talking about talking about Michael's "arrogance or ignorance" he goes on "Well, yes Michael, as a matter of fact. Thirty-nine times in fact, the first at Monza in 1951, when Alberto Ascari beat Froilan Gonzales ..." He also seemed to be under the impression that Michael was asking about any 1-2's. And actually this staement came out in France in 98 where he and Irvine had a 1-2, not in Monaco. Michael's comment later was "I am very happy with this 30th win of my career and, as I have been told, the first one - two finish for Ferrari since 1990".

[TAB666]

Originally posted by Williams


Yes, your memory serves you correctly. That was at Monza '98. To answer Michael's question Ferrari has 1-2'd there 7 times (51,60,66,79,88,98,02, 1960 was a 1-2-3), the most recently himself and Rubens in 2002.

I think those 7 times are from Monza, not Monaco.

But i mean it realy doesnt matter if the drivers know alot about the history of the sport. Sure they should know important parts, drivers and races and such.
But they dont have to know who won a rac back in 64

[Williams]

Originally posted by TAB666


I think those 7 times are from Monza, not Monaco.

I think that's what I said.;) And as I noted above Michael's statement is not from Monaco but France '98.

But i mean it realy doesnt matter if the drivers know alot about the history of the sport. Sure they should know important parts, drivers and races and such.
But they dont have to know who won a rac back in 64

I agree that that drivers don't necessarily need to know a whole lot about the sport, although it's a bonus if they do. Most drivers can tell you who their personal hero was (most current drivers seem to say Senna), and whatever they remember from watching GPs when they were younger, but that's about it.

[TAB666]

Originally posted by Williams


I think that's what I said.;) And as I noted above Michael's statement is not from Monaco but France '98.

You are so right, but i responded to it before you edited the post :-)

[AlesiUK]

i would say it makes no difference what so ever to performance on the track whether the driver is a historian,or someone who couldnt tell you who fangio was.

But i agree i prefer a driver who takes an interest in the heritage of the sport,and i think not enough of the current crop do.

Interestingly tho,with the way the sport is going,many of the younger guys breaking thru would actualy give Schumacher as there hero,Schuy won his first WDC 10 years ago,when the likes of alonso,kimi,button,davidson were all starting out in karting.

[Mat]

I prfer, and give more respect to a driver who is aware of their place in f1 history, and atleast knows a little about the sporting history they are involving themselves in.

I would never expect a race driver to be able to recite exact figures and facts, but they should still have an awareness of the facts. Schuey's 'blunder' at France '98 was pretty stupid, and disrespectful i think.

But hey, he doesnt need to know much about records and the likes anymore, he owns them all!

[Henrik B]

Rather than re-hashing whetether Michael is ignorant or not, I found the question originally asked an interesting one. Which drivers are aware of the history of the sport?

Montoya should have _some_ knowledge atleast, since he a few years ago stated that his favourite driving sim was Grand Prix Legends, where you drive '67 cars. If he knew what he was racing I'm not one to judge however.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by Williams


Yes, your memory serves you correctly. That was at Monza '98. To answer Michael's question Ferrari has 1-2'd there 7 times (51,60,66,79,88,98,02, 1960 was a 1-2-3), the most recently himself and Rubens in 2002.

I hadn't thought about it until you brought it up, because in his book "Chasing the "Title" Nigel Roebuck goes medieval on Schumacher for asking the question. Talking about talking about Michael's "arrogance or ignorance" he goes on "Well, yes Michael, as a matter of fact. Thirty-nine times in fact, the first at Monza in 1951, when Alberto Ascari beat Froilan Gonzales ..." He also seemed to be under the impression that Michael was asking about any 1-2's. And actually this staement came out in France in 98 where he and Irvine had a 1-2, not in Monaco. Michael's comment later was "I am very happy with this 30th win of my career and, as I have been told, the first one - two finish for Ferrari since 1990".

That's a bit baffling. Wasn't on of the reasons that MS gave for joining Ferrari, their great racing history? I wonder how he could not know that Ferrari had scored plenty of 1-2's before.

[boyRacer]

Originally posted by Wouter

That's a bit baffling. Wasn't on of the reasons that MS gave for joining Ferrari, their great racing history? I wonder how he could not know that Ferrari had scored plenty of 1-2's before.

He stated it many times that he was never aware of Ferraris "mystique" until maybe Imola 1996... where he put the Ferrari on pole which made the crowd go berserk... then the next day he forced the F310 across the finish line to claim 2nd despite a seized front wheel... effectively turning his car into a 3 wheel wagon. The track-invading tifosis engulf the car in an instant. Irvine and Barichello on the other hand knew very well what Ferrari is and the history behind it.

[Wouter]

Originally posted by boyRacer


He stated it many times that he was never aware of Ferraris "mystique" until maybe Imola 1996... where he put the Ferrari on pole which made the crowd go berserk... then the next day he forced the F310 across the finish line to claim 2nd despite a seized front wheel... effectively turning his car into a 3 wheel wagon. The track-invading tifosis engulf the car in an instant. Irvine and Barichello on the other hand knew very well what Ferrari is and the history behind it.

I see. I seem to have misremembered rather badly. Perhaps I mixed MS up with Irvine, or with other drivers who want to drive Ferrari with the racing history and mystique given as part of the reason. Ironically that their most succesful driver isn't one of those.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Wouter

That's a bit baffling. Wasn't on of the reasons that MS gave for joining Ferrari, their great racing history? I wonder how he could not know that Ferrari had scored plenty of 1-2's before.

Perhaps that was a reason given by Schumacher to the journalists, but the reality was far from that. In a recent report, Schumacher was said to be in fact baffled as to why Weber was so interested in getting him into a Ferrari. He had assumed that McLaren would be the target.

I find it hard to believe that Schumacher didn't know of any 1-2's and tab666 is probably nearer the mark in that Schumacher might have been talking about Ferrari at a particular GP venue.

[Foxbat]

Originally posted by Williams

I hadn't thought about it until you brought it up, because in his book "Chasing the "Title" Nigel Roebuck goes medieval on Schumacher for asking the question. Talking about talking about Michael's "arrogance or ignorance"

Not only is 'noige' a chronicler of the sports history, and being the perpetual by-stander tends to make you more aware of the importance of what the actual actors are doing then they themselves are. He has also gone "medieval" on Schumacher for lesser failings (eg. critising his high accident rate in free practice as being unworthy of a champion). So I wouldn't relly to much on him as a character witness

Still I don't expect MS, or any driver, to know much about the history of the sport apart from the bit they experienced (either through participation or from follwing the sport), but you'd expect more from the goverening body... wasn't it Mosley who got the first WDC wrong in a speech

[ensign14]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo

I believe his childhood heroes were footballers, specifically Toni Schumacher (legendary goalie for Germany).

Why does this not surprise me?

[Garagiste]

Originally posted by Williams
.....................
I find it hard to believe that Schumacher didn't know of any 1-2's and tab666 is probably nearer the mark in that Schumacher might have been talking about Ferrari at a particular GP venue.

Or perhaps he meant "our" first 1-2 in the context of post MS & team (Todt, Brawn, Byrne etc) Ferrari? Either way, perhaps not the smartest thing to say, but Roebuck really did go way OTT about it.

[madmac]

going back to the topic of the thread I think that Williams' signature sums up the debate nicely.;)

[velo]

Originally posted by Smooth
How do you know that they 'think it's an important part of being a GP driver.'?
And who really cares?

That's exactly what I was asking myself. On the other hand, I am pretty ignorant of the history of F1 heritage, myself. I understand that you mean past races and not its inception...? Still... what does it matter?

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by velo
That's exactly what I was asking myself. On the other hand, I am pretty ignorant of the history of F1 heritage, myself. I understand that you mean past races and not its inception...? Still... what does it matter?

Apparently it doesn't. When everything is focused and completely wrapped around the Here-and-Now, history is just not very important to most. After all, the idea that there could be consequences to actions is such an alien concept that any contemplation of such a notion would be roundly criticized as time-wasting.

Motor racing has almost always been a sport very unconcerned with its past. Unlike many of the other major sports, motor racing morphs so much over such a relatively short period of time that often any sense of a relationship between Now and Then is difficult to grasp.

Another mitigating factor is that most racers today are much younger than they were in the past and anti-intellectualism is almost a trademark of most of those whose racing careers began when they were scarcely out of training pants. Plus, racers tended to come from those more attuned to the objective, mechanical things in life than the affective or less defined questions of life.

I think most team managers would cringe at having an intellectual at the wheel versus a instinctive, gut-level sort of driver. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but not a likely combination at any time in the history of motor racing.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by Don Capps

I think most team managers would cringe at having an intellectual at the wheel versus a instinctive, gut-level sort of driver. The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but not a likely combination at any time in the history of motor racing.

I think Senna and Prost were pretty close. People don't remember it so much but when he needed to Alain could tiger with the best of them.

I think Schumi is there as well - he puts a lot of brainpower and sheer graft into it.

[black magic]

michael is as aware of the history of the sport as anyone else in the paddock. for godsake he's even driven some of the historuical cars. he ahs taken part in historical displays by ferrari. he has refused to be compared to fangio.

seems obvious to me he was referring to the monaco circuit. I mean this is a guy who has a mind like a computer for all things related to whats happening in the car etc.

roebuck can't stand the guy and has lost all perspective to his own discredit as a serious journalist.

yet again the senna myth of this mystical demigod. the guy was no better worse than anyone else. when alive people attacked him for his LACK of charisma and personality. now dead we get time and again this inference that he was the soul of f1. talk about the re writing of history. can none remember a senna podium? all the excitement of a croquet match. it was all the guy could do to be bothered to even acknowledge the fans

as for heros of current drivers always makes me laugh how every current driver lists senna rather than ms for whom they prefer in those trivial f1 racing 1 minute question thingies. even kimi who probably started racing after his death. yes it might be true but methinks its all about appearing to not be overwhelmed by michael

[Jhope]

Originally posted by black magic
michael is as aware of the history of the sport as anyone else in the paddock. for godsake he's even driven some of the historuical cars. he ahs taken part in historical displays by ferrari. he has refused to be compared to fangio.

That's very easy when you have an army of public relations officers feeding you crap to make you look smart, and making you do things that make you look like you appreciate the sports past. That doesn't only go for Michael, but for every single soul in the pitlane who gets behind the wheel of a car on Sunday afternoon.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by black magic
yet again the senna myth of this mystical demigod. the guy was no better worse than anyone else. when alive people attacked him for his LACK of charisma and personality. now dead we get time and again this inference that he was the soul of f1. talk about the re writing of history. can none remember a senna podium? all the excitement of a croquet match. it was all the guy could do to be bothered to even acknowledge the fans

Ayrton Senna da Silva, may have been many things, but the "soul of F1" was never one of them. At some point, certainly by 1996, he had become the personification of a Perfumed Prince. Skilled, talented, competitive, but scarcely the sort you would enjoy having dinner with since it was clear that his world was very much a closed one and if you weren't a part of it, well.... His behavior, particularly between 1988 and 1991, was often abysmal and consistently infantile.

Unlike many, I did not change my tune upon his death: I didn't think much of him before it and saw no reason to suddenly sing his praises afterwards. Oh, he was extremely talented, skilled, quick, and also something of an jerk.

I recently read over some of my notes from the Senna Era and I have since tempered my thoughts about Herr Michael Schumacher as a result. Even as early as 1986, many of us were wondering just who the hell did Senna think he was? By the end of 1988, we realized that he was perhaps one of those folks that you most certainly would not want to send three days with on a bus trip. By the end of 1990, when he drove Prost off the track in Japan, a lot of us simply could care less about him. He was a Perfumed Prince who voided champagne and caviar. The reincarnation of the Sun King.

[black magic]

thanks don. I know I regularly clash heads with you but appreciate your truthfulness.

thats always how I remembered him but was not as ardent follower in those days.

jhope. sorry but can't believe you would be an f1 driver and not at least curious about the cars of old if offered the chance. my impression of ms is that his recall of events since his debut is never wrong(interpretation maybe but results never.)

encyclopaedic knowledge of f1 past. no of course not but he would know who's who. hells teeth he's no doubt talked to any of those still alive. with the access they have to the inner sanctum are you suggesting they wouldn't have sought out his aquantance at least? he's always talked respectfully of those from yesteryear which certainly could not be said when he has referred to some of his contemparies. why would it not be genuine? what does he have to lose - or gain for that matter?

[Buford]

It isn't just racing. Many participants in sports, being young and focused, are more interested in the here and now. Every year, the Chicago Bears, the founding NFL team bring in great players from the past, show movies, etc trying to instill in the young millionaires what the heritage of the team and the league is. Try to teach them that at the very least, they HAVE to beat Green Bay, if they win no other games. I think they have lost about 12 of the last 13 to Green Bay. Some players, and some racers have the essence of their place in ongoing history. Most do not.

In the case of Senna - I too had little respect for him. I blame him for the current state of terrible driving that masquerades as Formula One. Senna was a driver who had too much talent to use dirty driving tactics, but he did so anyway and taught the next generation to do the same. To put him in the same paragraph with a true ace and gentleman like Jim Clark, makes me want to puke.

[bira]

Heh, France 1998. It's a myth that has been repeated and propagated so many times since.

This is what Michael Schumacher said in the post-race press conference, immediately after the podium ceremony:

Q. Congratulations, Michael, on your 30th career victory in F1. Seeing the welcome
you had from your team, we don't need to be told what it means for Ferrari to have
taken a 1-2 result today!
MS: It's great to have the thirtieth win, and obviously it's very important for the championship.
I don't remember Ferrari's last 1-2 result, and as Eddie says it was about time we did it again.

(Source: FIA).

Moving from the tv post-race conference to the media conference, Bob Constanduras mentioned that Ferrari's last 1-2 was in 1990. Schumacher repeated that fact later, stating that he has "been told" it was Ferrari's first 1-2 since 1990.

On the topic of Schumacher's respect for history: he has a lot of respect for it, but little interest in studying it. I see nothing wrong with that. His knowledge of F1 history falls much shorter than Don Capps's, but you know something? That's true for 99.99999% of everyone who works or follows F1. But don't be mistaken: Schumacher's knowledge of F1 history is still much higher than you give him credit. He won't be able to cite results and dates for you, but he knows very well where this sport comes from and who Phil Hill, Stirling Moss, Gilles Villeneuve, or Niki Lauda are in the context of F1 history. He certainly knows _a lot_ when it comes to modern racing, ie the 1980s and onward.

[HP]

As to Senna. After his death, F1 has had need to bridge the void he left. Hence all of the post- mortem hype he got. Despite that he is still one of the best racers that graced F1.

As for the heritage. The technical aspecet of the sport changed a lot. Now especially if you want to be a successful driver now what can one learn from the past generation of drivers? Not much I am afraid. Take Gilles for example. His character and bravery were unique (as is every other driver obviously) thus he is not easily copied. And his drives? Because of grooves, TC, more aerodynamic D instead of mechanical DF, how on earth is a driver of today to copy him? JPM had a bit of that driving style when he entered F1, but to become successful he had to adapt. So really there is not much in it for a current driver except to impress folks interested in F1 history.