planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:18 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2496
Location: UK
Beleriand_K wrote:
In my Top 170 ranking of the most successful drivers Damon Hill rank no. 11. I've published the updated ranking a few times, and ranking Damon Hill that high always results in criticism. "Ok, he became a WDC, but that was only because of his car" is the usually argument.

I always wonder why Damon Hill has so little recognition. Was he really a mediocre driver, just being in the right place at the right time? No, I don't think so. His track record is impressive, and his results against very competitive teammates proved, that what he achieved wasn't just because he was equipped with a good car.

I agree that it is debatable whether Damon Hill should rank higher than Alonso, Lauda etc, but I do believe that his results should earn him a lot more respect, than he is getting.

Damon Hills results is well known with 22 wins, a WDC and two runner-up titles during his 122 races from 1992 to 1999. He achieved this despite racing for inferior teams during four of those eight season.

But what is even more interesting, and less obvious, is his results against his teammates during 1993-1998. I exclude the initial 1992 season with a few races for a dying Brabham team and his last season for Jordan in 1999, where he only scored 7 points against Frentzens 54 points. I think that difference says more about the state of mind of Damon Hill, who announced his retirement in the middle of the season, but still completed the season.

For the period 1993-1998 Damon Hills point scoring compared with his teammates looks like this:

1993: Prost 99 - Hill 69
1994: Hill 7 - Senna 0 (3 races)
1994: Hill 22 - Mansell 13 (4 races)
1994: Hill 62 - Coulthard 13 (8 races)
1995: Hill 69 - Coulthard 49
1996: Hill 97 - Villeneuve 78
1997: Hill 7 - Deniz 2
1998: Hill 20 - Schumacher (Ralf) 14

So during six of his eight seasons in F1 Damon Hill outscored every single teammate apart from Alain Prost. Including Senna, Mansell and Villeneuve, who won five WDC-titles. I think this calls for a lot of respect.

Disregarding 1999 on the basis that Hill wasn't at his best yet counting 1994 against a 41 year old Nigel Mansell who had just come out of retirement and barely fit in the car seems a little like clutching at straws to me. The only real fair comparisons here are vs Coulthard and Villeneuve, both of whose careers I believe were also flattered by having a very good car, Ralf Schumacher, who would have outscored Damon in 1998 but for some team orders in Spa, and Prost who you could argue a truly top-class driver would have beaten in 1993 on the basis that he was 38 (incidentally the same age Damon was in 1999) and had been out of the sport for a year. That's of course disregarding Diniz who was hardly a benchmark for a top driver.

I think Damon's reputation is fair.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4172
UnlikeUday wrote:
Has any other driver had a '0' on his car?

Jody Scheckter, 1973, Mclaren M23, had "0" in two last races of 1973.

Image

Taken from Pinterest, passionea300allora.it

He is probably the only driver to have zero twice in his carrier, as he had it also on his Trojan F5000 T101, the very same year.
Image
Taken from: http://www.oldracingcars.com/

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 1398
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
slide wrote:
don't forget 94 where he was robbed after being crashed into from a damaged car that was finished but did it to win the wdc , and so I consider that title to be damons , not scumacher's


You can consider it to be whatever you wish, but the facts are, it is not Damon's.

Also, one must also assign a portion of the guilt (yes, I know that is not popular) for that accident to Damon. He would have been wise to wait to make the move, given Schumi's car's condition. Nor do you know for sure that Schumi intentionally "did it to win the wdc".


How could he when he didn't know Schumacher's car condition? He didn't see him hit the barrier. As far as Damon was concerned that was his one chance.

That "accident" was entirely Schumacher's fault.


here here


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 4109
slide wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
slide wrote:
don't forget 94 where he was robbed after being crashed into from a damaged car that was finished but did it to win the wdc , and so I consider that title to be damons , not scumacher's


You can consider it to be whatever you wish, but the facts are, it is not Damon's.

Also, one must also assign a portion of the guilt (yes, I know that is not popular) for that accident to Damon. He would have been wise to wait to make the move, given Schumi's car's condition. Nor do you know for sure that Schumi intentionally "did it to win the wdc".


How could he when he didn't know Schumacher's car condition? He didn't see him hit the barrier. As far as Damon was concerned that was his one chance.

That "accident" was entirely Schumacher's fault.


here here

Yeah I felt bad for Damon that day. He was robbed. At least they didn't let Michael get away with it in 97'...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 11:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 23136
justbeingmiko wrote:
Is this debate still occurring? *tongue in cheek*

Damon was a good driver, and certainly better than his detractors claim.

There is more than enough evidence from people that knew him, his skills and worked in the F1 world that rate him very highly. Senna did, Prost did, Patrick Head did, to name a few. Here's the crux. None of them thought of Damon as a legend. Indeed, not even Damon classes himself as a legend!!

But that doesn't mean he was a journey man - the world of fans and sports seems to be too linear. You are either a legend or a failure! There is such a wide range in between. Damon was a very good driver, one who had a great car but delivered exceptional results when it mattered (1996), drove the occasional race that defied even the legends (Suzuka 94, Spa 98, Hungary 97). So he is worthy of recognition from all fans of the sport. To suggest he was anything other than a world class driver is disingenuous.

I do have to pass comment on the whole 98 threatening to take Ralf off - what absolute rubbish. It is well documented that he told Jordan to get Ralf to hold position, as to race in those conditions could jeopardize a 1/2 finish. That is NOT threatening to take Ralf off, not even close. It is thinking of the team, of a remarkable result and of being infinitely sensible in horrendous conditions (I was there, it was terrifyingly wet).

I would dispute that I have heard Damon say that he basically gave Jordan an ultimatum.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: Currently 11th

Podiums: 2nd Canada 2015, 3rd Monza 2016, Hungary 2016 and Barcelona 2015


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Nebraska, USA
pokerman wrote:
Like he didn't intentionally try to do the same to Villenueve in an almost carbon copy style for which he got penalised, again with the title on the line, like he didn't intentionally park his car in Monaco qualifying to protect his pole position for which again he got penalised?

Schumacher has form for this also with Hill he knew he had damaged his car, Hill didn't know this, it was Schumacher's boxing version of rope a dope, he left the door open for Hill to go through with the fullest intention of closing that door when Hill got there.


A whole lot of opinion here, but not much fact. I didn't address '97, pokerman, because I too suspect it was intentional, to call it a carbon copy of '04 is inaccurate. That said, you can't say for sure that the Monaco parking was intentional, nor can you prove that Schumi did the "rope a dope" as you call it. Opinion, even if popular, is nothing more than one's opinion.


To answer the question of the OP... no, Damon is not better than his reputation, and to have him as high as #11 in any kind of ranking of F1 drivers over time, I believe is a bit ludicrous.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 12:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4304
Location: Michigan, USA
Blake wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Like he didn't intentionally try to do the same to Villenueve in an almost carbon copy style for which he got penalised, again with the title on the line, like he didn't intentionally park his car in Monaco qualifying to protect his pole position for which again he got penalised?

Schumacher has form for this also with Hill he knew he had damaged his car, Hill didn't know this, it was Schumacher's boxing version of rope a dope, he left the door open for Hill to go through with the fullest intention of closing that door when Hill got there.

A whole lot of opinion here, but not much fact. I didn't address '97, pokerman, because I too suspect it was intentional, to call it a carbon copy of '04 is inaccurate. That said, you can't say for sure that the Monaco parking was intentional, nor can you prove that Schumi did the "rope a dope" as you call it. Opinion, even if popular, is nothing more than one's opinion.

My personal take on it is that '94 was a heat of the moment - but intentional - decision to take Damon out when he realized he wasn't going to finish and saw an opportunity, whereas '97 was more premeditated in that he knew it would work and was probably considering it ahead of time. Sort of Prost '89 vs. Senna '90, if you will; Prost turned in on Senna, but only when he realized he was about to lose the race - Senna hit Prost because he'd already decided he was going to do so.

And in fact I blame both incidents for why Schumacher did it; how can you blame him fully, when he learned in his early years that great champions could win titles by hitting each other? Neither Prost or Senna lost their title for it (although in my opinion it's an outrage that Senna didn't), so why wouldn't he consider it as a last resort? If Senna had had his title stripped in 1990 for hitting Prost intentionally, I'm confident Schumacher would never have tried it. The FIA has to take at least some of the blame.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
j man wrote:
Disregarding 1999 on the basis that Hill wasn't at his best yet counting 1994 against a 41 year old Nigel Mansell who had just come out of retirement and barely fit in the car seems a little like clutching at straws to me. The only real fair comparisons here are vs Coulthard and Villeneuve, both of whose careers I believe were also flattered by having a very good car, Ralf Schumacher, who would have outscored Damon in 1998 but for some team orders in Spa, and Prost who you could argue a truly top-class driver would have beaten in 1993 on the basis that he was 38 (incidentally the same age Damon was in 1999) and had been out of the sport for a year. That's of course disregarding Diniz who was hardly a benchmark for a top driver.

I think Damon's reputation is fair.


Sorry for off-topic but how was Jacques' career "flattered" by having a very good car? He had his first two seasons at the dominant Williams-Renault and then nothing. Unlike Coulthard who also debuted at the dominant Williams-Renault but was in the Newey-designed McLaren-Mercedes from 1998-2004 and was seldom able to mount a challenge to Hakkinen and Raikkonen.

It's funny that Hakkinen couldn't win a race until that fateful Jerez 1997 although he was hampered by his car prior to that. Meanwhile Coulthard already had 3 wins to his name going into that race, 2 of which already at McLaren in 1997.

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 4:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 5093
Location: Mumbai, India
sandman1347 wrote:
slide wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Blake wrote:
slide wrote:
don't forget 94 where he was robbed after being crashed into from a damaged car that was finished but did it to win the wdc , and so I consider that title to be damons , not scumacher's


You can consider it to be whatever you wish, but the facts are, it is not Damon's.

Also, one must also assign a portion of the guilt (yes, I know that is not popular) for that accident to Damon. He would have been wise to wait to make the move, given Schumi's car's condition. Nor do you know for sure that Schumi intentionally "did it to win the wdc".


How could he when he didn't know Schumacher's car condition? He didn't see him hit the barrier. As far as Damon was concerned that was his one chance.

That "accident" was entirely Schumacher's fault.


here here

Yeah I felt bad for Damon that day. He was robbed. At least they didn't let Michael get away with it in 97'...




How did Schumacher escape a penalty is beyond me?

Hill could've been a double world champ.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 2496
Location: UK
Pole2Win wrote:
j man wrote:
Disregarding 1999 on the basis that Hill wasn't at his best yet counting 1994 against a 41 year old Nigel Mansell who had just come out of retirement and barely fit in the car seems a little like clutching at straws to me. The only real fair comparisons here are vs Coulthard and Villeneuve, both of whose careers I believe were also flattered by having a very good car, Ralf Schumacher, who would have outscored Damon in 1998 but for some team orders in Spa, and Prost who you could argue a truly top-class driver would have beaten in 1993 on the basis that he was 38 (incidentally the same age Damon was in 1999) and had been out of the sport for a year. That's of course disregarding Diniz who was hardly a benchmark for a top driver.

I think Damon's reputation is fair.


Sorry for off-topic but how was Jacques' career "flattered" by having a very good car? He had his first two seasons at the dominant Williams-Renault and then nothing. Unlike Coulthard who also debuted at the dominant Williams-Renault but was in the Newey-designed McLaren-Mercedes from 1998-2004 and was seldom able to mount a challenge to Hakkinen and Raikkonen.

It's funny that Hakkinen couldn't win a race until that fateful Jerez 1997 although he was hampered by his car prior to that. Meanwhile Coulthard already had 3 wins to his name going into that race, 2 of which already at McLaren in 1997.

Jacques' reputation was built on those two seasons at Williams and in my eyes he did nothing spectacular in any of the subsequent years. If you'd looked solely at his form from 98 onwards he would never have gotten the Sauber drive at the end of his career.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 4304
Location: Michigan, USA
UnlikeUday wrote:

The ever-alert watchdogs of FOM have already got to the video. Just in time, too - I was about to watch it, and just imagine the damage it might have done to F1's brand if I had! 8O

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition
2017: Don't Ask| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
Wins: 3 | Podiums: 11

PF1 Top Three Constructor's Championship
2015 (No Limit Excedrin Racing): CHAMPIONS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 17, 2003 10:09 pm
Posts: 8514
He wasn't an all time great, but like all the drivers in his era, If you remove Schumacher he was arguably the best or second best driver over 1994-1998. Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Senna all left the sport within 18 months.

Schumacher was the stand out of the remaining drivers, with probably Hakkinen second. After that Damon was as good as anybody in that era. 3rd best on the grid. Rosberg won the WDC this year and he is what the 5th or 6th best driver on the grid. I think he is under rated and if Schumacher wasn't around he would have probably won 3 WDCs.

_________________
http://www.racefan.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 1:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 10622
Exediron wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:

The ever-alert watchdogs of FOM have already got to the video. Just in time, too - I was about to watch it, and just imagine the damage it might have done to F1's brand if I had! 8O


? Video's still there, just got to click through to YT itself.

_________________
Supporting all drivers with surnames starting with "V".

Proud member of the "It's Toro Rosso, not Torro Rosso" action committee.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 4:12 pm
Posts: 5759
Location: Nebraska, USA
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:

The ever-alert watchdogs of FOM have already got to the video. Just in time, too - I was about to watch it, and just imagine the damage it might have done to F1's brand if I had! 8O


? Video's still there, just got to click through to YT itself.


Indeed, one can watch it. As I watched it, it sure seems that Damon knew of Schumi's shunt, and could have, and should have waited to try to make the pass.

_________________
Forza Ferrari
WCCs = 16
WDCs = 15


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 3:57 am
Posts: 907
Location: Brazil
Blake wrote:
Indeed, one can watch it. As I watched it, it sure seems that Damon knew of Schumi's shunt, and could have, and should have waited to try to make the pass.


Your argument doesn't work because, if Damon should have waited to overtake Schumacher after the German hitting the wall, then you concede that Schumacher's car definitely sustained significant damage from the hit, enough to slow him down considerably. If his car sustained such amount of damage (possibly terminal), he did not have any business staying on the racing line, let alone defending his position, as his race was effectively over and he'd lose the title if Damon finished at least 5th.

I remember Jacques Villeneuve going into the grass to overtake Damon at Hungary 1997, and Damon did try to defend his position despite his car's failure, but quickly withdrew from the fight because it was meaningless. Also, the only reason Hill stayed out was because his car started to fail only at the very end of the race... Schumacher's move at Australia 1994 was during lap 35 of 81, not even halfway through the race.

To me it makes no difference whether Damon knew of Schumacher's situation because:

1) If Schumacher's car was damaged, Schumacher shouldn't have tried to defend his position, as it was useless... unless he wanted to cause an incident, of course. The collision was at Turn 6, early in the lap. Even if Schumacher's car had not sustained terminal damage, he would effectively be out of title contention barring some incident with Damon or mechanical failure (the latter of which was not uncommon in the 90s) because he'd lose too much time heading back to the pits.

2) If Schumacher's car was still in good condition, that was Damon's greatest chance of overtaking him. It's silly to suggest that he waste it to suit a different narrative. If damage was small, there was no "waiting" to be done, as Schumacher would just shrug it off and stay ahead.

Hill's misfortune was that the opportunity to make the move arose at a place where Schumacher could turn an attempt at taking him down into something inconspicuous, much like how Senna tried to overtake Prost at the Suzuka chicane in 1989... I'd pay gold for a recording of Benetton's radio chat during the moments preceding the crash. :lol:

Schumacher's undoing was trying to do it again to Villeneuve in 1997, to the point the Canadian has claimed he went for the overtake fully expecting Schumacher to do such a move. Whether that's actually true is up to debate, but evidence backs him up, as Jerez is a Hungaroring-style track where overtaking is notoriously difficult, and his line through the corner was such that he would've overshot it and been stuck in the gravel trap if the crash didn't occur (you can see this because Villeneuve severely locks his left front wheel immediately after the cars collide).

_________________
Image

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 12:35 pm
Posts: 1136
I just wonder what could have been if Damon started F1 at a younger age for instance at the age of 23 and not 33.

Yes, he may not have had the greatest competition in terms of teammates head to head wise, but considering 21 wins in a three year span? That was and is phenomenal even to this day between 93 and I include 97 because if it was not for that dreadful equipment at Arrows, he could even be a two-time WDC instead of just his one from '96. Damon was THAT good in that time span, I think of other drivers comparable in other disciplines like a Bobby Labonte from 98-00 in NASCAR winning his championship in 2000 who within those three years was untouchable in Joe Gibbs Racing cars.

Damon really I think is even better than what his reputation says, I rated him that highly. If Senna lived, would Hill's stats be as good as they are? Or would he be even underrated at a number two driver? Its all very interesting to think of IMHO.

_________________
Felipe Massa fan/supporter since 2002 and counting!

We ALL love you Schumi! Don't ever give up!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 20, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:51 am
Posts: 4172
Blake wrote:
mds wrote:
Exediron wrote:
UnlikeUday wrote:

The ever-alert watchdogs of FOM have already got to the video. Just in time, too - I was about to watch it, and just imagine the damage it might have done to F1's brand if I had! 8O


? Video's still there, just got to click through to YT itself.


Indeed, one can watch it. As I watched it, it sure seems that Damon knew of Schumi's shunt, and could have, and should have waited to try to make the pass.

I sense that Hill's mistake was the he went behind Michael first, and only than tried to overtake when they were already in braking zone. Had he kept the right part of the circuit, he would pass Michael in such a way that he would not even notice. But, it was already 22 years ago and it's easy to be smart now.

_________________
The end is near


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Los Angeles, California
Hill was very good considering his unusual path to F1. That said, 11th is WAY too high. Maybe somewhere between 20-25, but certainly not 11th. He deserves the one title he has, but no more. He got all he could out of his F1 career, quite a feat considering how late it began.

Fiki wrote:
The key to Hill's reputation lies in the aftermath of Adelaide 1994, I am convinced. Whereas the Williams team can be forgiven for not challenging the outcome of that race, the FIA cannot. Their shameful conduct continues to throw a shadow over the whole period. (I doubt the shame applies to Mosley only, but that is for serious F1 historians to unravel.)

Hill was good enough for two titles, which in my estimation he indeed won. Would he have been stronger in 1995, had the FIA acted in a way that honoured the rules that governed F1?


That's absurd. I give Hill far more credit than you, apparently. I think he had the mental fortitude to get over that and move on.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you are right. Damon Hill was negatively affected by 1994, and he was unable to perform at his best for the years that followed. If that was the case, then he did not deserve to win in 1995. He had the car to win, and if he wasn't so soft, maybe he would have had the mental strength to bounce back and perform at a level required to contend for a title.

That said, I believe Hill did move on. His problem in 1995 wasn't mental. It was that a superior driver had a car close enough in performance to his own.

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 11:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6740
Location: Belgium
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The key to Hill's reputation lies in the aftermath of Adelaide 1994, I am convinced. Whereas the Williams team can be forgiven for not challenging the outcome of that race, the FIA cannot. Their shameful conduct continues to throw a shadow over the whole period. (I doubt the shame applies to Mosley only, but that is for serious F1 historians to unravel.)

Hill was good enough for two titles, which in my estimation he indeed won. Would he have been stronger in 1995, had the FIA acted in a way that honoured the rules that governed F1?


That's absurd. I give Hill far more credit than you, apparently. I think he had the mental fortitude to get over that and move on.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you are right. Damon Hill was negatively affected by 1994, and he was unable to perform at his best for the years that followed. If that was the case, then he did not deserve to win in 1995. He had the car to win, and if he wasn't so soft, maybe he would have had the mental strength to bounce back and perform at a level required to contend for a title.

That said, I believe Hill did move on. His problem in 1995 wasn't mental. It was that a superior driver had a car close enough in performance to his own.
I don't see why my view of things would be absurd. Put yourself in his place at the end of 1994, with all that had happened, and explain to me how you think you would feel if all your efforts for a whole year would be ignored by the FIA and, to some extent, your own team. I feel that if you expect him to bounce back from the result of 1994, you have lost sight of the whole of that disgusting year, not just the despicable way it ended in the final race.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2017 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Los Angeles, California
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The key to Hill's reputation lies in the aftermath of Adelaide 1994, I am convinced. Whereas the Williams team can be forgiven for not challenging the outcome of that race, the FIA cannot. Their shameful conduct continues to throw a shadow over the whole period. (I doubt the shame applies to Mosley only, but that is for serious F1 historians to unravel.)

Hill was good enough for two titles, which in my estimation he indeed won. Would he have been stronger in 1995, had the FIA acted in a way that honoured the rules that governed F1?


That's absurd. I give Hill far more credit than you, apparently. I think he had the mental fortitude to get over that and move on.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you are right. Damon Hill was negatively affected by 1994, and he was unable to perform at his best for the years that followed. If that was the case, then he did not deserve to win in 1995. He had the car to win, and if he wasn't so soft, maybe he would have had the mental strength to bounce back and perform at a level required to contend for a title.

That said, I believe Hill did move on. His problem in 1995 wasn't mental. It was that a superior driver had a car close enough in performance to his own.
I don't see why my view of things would be absurd. Put yourself in his place at the end of 1994, with all that had happened, and explain to me how you think you would feel if all your efforts for a whole year would be ignored by the FIA and, to some extent, your own team. I feel that if you expect him to bounce back from the result of 1994, you have lost sight of the whole of that disgusting year, not just the despicable way it ended in the final race.


Saying he won two titles is absolutely absurd because he didn't, and if Hill was affected by that year, and he let it affect his driving in the years that followed, then he deserved to lose. Simple as that.

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6740
Location: Belgium
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The key to Hill's reputation lies in the aftermath of Adelaide 1994, I am convinced. Whereas the Williams team can be forgiven for not challenging the outcome of that race, the FIA cannot. Their shameful conduct continues to throw a shadow over the whole period. (I doubt the shame applies to Mosley only, but that is for serious F1 historians to unravel.)

Hill was good enough for two titles, which in my estimation he indeed won. Would he have been stronger in 1995, had the FIA acted in a way that honoured the rules that governed F1?


That's absurd. I give Hill far more credit than you, apparently. I think he had the mental fortitude to get over that and move on.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you are right. Damon Hill was negatively affected by 1994, and he was unable to perform at his best for the years that followed. If that was the case, then he did not deserve to win in 1995. He had the car to win, and if he wasn't so soft, maybe he would have had the mental strength to bounce back and perform at a level required to contend for a title.

That said, I believe Hill did move on. His problem in 1995 wasn't mental. It was that a superior driver had a car close enough in performance to his own.
I don't see why my view of things would be absurd. Put yourself in his place at the end of 1994, with all that had happened, and explain to me how you think you would feel if all your efforts for a whole year would be ignored by the FIA and, to some extent, your own team. I feel that if you expect him to bounce back from the result of 1994, you have lost sight of the whole of that disgusting year, not just the despicable way it ended in the final race.


Saying he won two titles is absolutely absurd because he didn't, and if Hill was affected by that year, and he let it affect his driving in the years that followed, then he deserved to lose. Simple as that.
I didn't make a secret of who I hold responsible for making Schumacher's stolen title official, but that doesn't make what happened in 1994 somehow "right". I reiterate that in my estimation Hill won the title, not Schumacher.

And I ask you again how you would feel if the whole of F1 went along with the Benetton cheating and Schumacher's vile manoeuvre against you. Would your next season be entirely unaffected? I doubt it.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 02, 2017 8:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1165
Location: Los Angeles, California
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
The key to Hill's reputation lies in the aftermath of Adelaide 1994, I am convinced. Whereas the Williams team can be forgiven for not challenging the outcome of that race, the FIA cannot. Their shameful conduct continues to throw a shadow over the whole period. (I doubt the shame applies to Mosley only, but that is for serious F1 historians to unravel.)

Hill was good enough for two titles, which in my estimation he indeed won. Would he have been stronger in 1995, had the FIA acted in a way that honoured the rules that governed F1?


That's absurd. I give Hill far more credit than you, apparently. I think he had the mental fortitude to get over that and move on.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you are right. Damon Hill was negatively affected by 1994, and he was unable to perform at his best for the years that followed. If that was the case, then he did not deserve to win in 1995. He had the car to win, and if he wasn't so soft, maybe he would have had the mental strength to bounce back and perform at a level required to contend for a title.

That said, I believe Hill did move on. His problem in 1995 wasn't mental. It was that a superior driver had a car close enough in performance to his own.
I don't see why my view of things would be absurd. Put yourself in his place at the end of 1994, with all that had happened, and explain to me how you think you would feel if all your efforts for a whole year would be ignored by the FIA and, to some extent, your own team. I feel that if you expect him to bounce back from the result of 1994, you have lost sight of the whole of that disgusting year, not just the despicable way it ended in the final race.


Saying he won two titles is absolutely absurd because he didn't, and if Hill was affected by that year, and he let it affect his driving in the years that followed, then he deserved to lose. Simple as that.
I didn't make a secret of who I hold responsible for making Schumacher's stolen title official, but that doesn't make what happened in 1994 somehow "right". I reiterate that in my estimation Hill won the title, not Schumacher.

And I ask you again how you would feel if the whole of F1 went along with the Benetton cheating and Schumacher's vile manoeuvre against you. Would your next season be entirely unaffected? I doubt it.


Your estimation means nothing. It's Schumacher's title. End of.

If I was Damon Hill, I would have put that year behind me and pushed on, determined to be the best driver I can be, and contribute as much as I can to the team, the following year. That's what Schumacher would have done, and it's what he did after being disqualified from the 1997 season. He didn't let the embarrassment of being the only driver in F1 history to be disqualified from an entire season for an on-track action affect his driving. In fact, most people would say that 1998 was his best season performance-wise. If Schumacher would've had the same mentality you say Hill had, then he would've crumbled like a cookie once he saw McLaren lap the field in Melbourne, and he would've deserved to lose every race and championship afterwards.

That said, Hill was much tougher mentally than you give him credit for. He didn't run from Prost, Senna, or from assuming the role of #1 driver in a team that was still coping with Senna's loss and needed a strong leader. I just can't fathom this idea that what happened in Adelaide got to this man in the way you suggest. Nothing about him can be described as "weak".

_________________
"No, there is no terrible way to win. There is only winning."
Jean-Pierre Sarti


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6740
Location: Belgium
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I didn't make a secret of who I hold responsible for making Schumacher's stolen title official, but that doesn't make what happened in 1994 somehow "right". I reiterate that in my estimation Hill won the title, not Schumacher.

And I ask you again how you would feel if the whole of F1 went along with the Benetton cheating and Schumacher's vile manoeuvre against you. Would your next season be entirely unaffected? I doubt it.


Your estimation means nothing. It's Schumacher's title. End of.

If I was Damon Hill, I would have put that year behind me and pushed on, determined to be the best driver I can be, and contribute as much as I can to the team, the following year. That's what Schumacher would have done, and it's what he did after being disqualified from the 1997 season. He didn't let the embarrassment of being the only driver in F1 history to be disqualified from an entire season for an on-track action affect his driving. In fact, most people would say that 1998 was his best season performance-wise. If Schumacher would've had the same mentality you say Hill had, then he would've crumbled like a cookie once he saw McLaren lap the field in Melbourne, and he would've deserved to lose every race and championship afterwards.

That said, Hill was much tougher mentally than you give him credit for. He didn't run from Prost, Senna, or from assuming the role of #1 driver in a team that was still coping with Senna's loss and needed a strong leader. I just can't fathom this idea that what happened in Adelaide got to this man in the way you suggest. Nothing about him can be described as "weak".
Since this thread is about Damon Hill's reputation, I would put forward that estimation, esteem even, means everything! Schumacher didn't win the title; as everybody could see, he stole it after he found he couldn't win it.

If you read carefully what I wrote, you will find I don't just give Hill some credit. I consider him a double world champion. I do agree with what you wrote about him not running away from Prost or Senna, but he was in both cases very much 'the other driver' in the team, and would "normally" not have won a single title. Which to me is all the more reason to admire how he went about picking up the challenge of facing Benetton and Schumacher and all their cheating.

I believe it's nuance you have a problem with. A driver good enough to win two world titles doesn't just crumble like a cookie*. But seeing how corrupt the sport can be will leave its mark on a competitor. I'm perfectly willing to believe you might be incapable of seeing why Hill would have suffered from the double injustice of 1994. Perhaps Hamilton's dip a few years back could make you think again.

But there is one thing I'm sure you will probably understand. Schumacher wasn't just running around with an ill-gotten title in 1995, he had just received the confirmation that whatever he (or his team) did, was perfectly fine. That's what made him an even more formidable obstacle. Because there is nothing anybody could have done better to strengthen his already rock-solid self-belief. The first time that was properly challenged was in 2006, more than a decade later. People had spoken out before, but the FIA turned a deaf ear as well as a blind eye.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
You'd also have to consider that Hill had to rely on the deck being stacked massively in his favour for the 1994 title. I'm not so sure you could say he won it as much as it was pretty much spoon fed to him.

Going into the last race, his only realistic competition had been disqualified for four races, allowing Hill a clear run to catch him up. Schumacher had been comfortably been leading Hill in Japan before the safety car mixed things up, while prior to that Hill had only managed to beat Schumacher once on track - once - and even then was helped massively by the fact that Schumacher had to drive most of the race in 5th gear (despite which, he still finished 2nd, a hugely impressive feat and possibly the finest drive he's ever produced).

So yes, Schumacher's actions ended Hill's title hopes that year. But let's not pretend that he would have even been a contender without the massive leg-up he got throughout the season. On track he was less of a match for Schumacher than Rosberg was last year for Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 12:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 5198
Fiki wrote:
SnakeSVT2003 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
I didn't make a secret of who I hold responsible for making Schumacher's stolen title official, but that doesn't make what happened in 1994 somehow "right". I reiterate that in my estimation Hill won the title, not Schumacher.

And I ask you again how you would feel if the whole of F1 went along with the Benetton cheating and Schumacher's vile manoeuvre against you. Would your next season be entirely unaffected? I doubt it.


Your estimation means nothing. It's Schumacher's title. End of.

If I was Damon Hill, I would have put that year behind me and pushed on, determined to be the best driver I can be, and contribute as much as I can to the team, the following year. That's what Schumacher would have done, and it's what he did after being disqualified from the 1997 season. He didn't let the embarrassment of being the only driver in F1 history to be disqualified from an entire season for an on-track action affect his driving. In fact, most people would say that 1998 was his best season performance-wise. If Schumacher would've had the same mentality you say Hill had, then he would've crumbled like a cookie once he saw McLaren lap the field in Melbourne, and he would've deserved to lose every race and championship afterwards.

That said, Hill was much tougher mentally than you give him credit for. He didn't run from Prost, Senna, or from assuming the role of #1 driver in a team that was still coping with Senna's loss and needed a strong leader. I just can't fathom this idea that what happened in Adelaide got to this man in the way you suggest. Nothing about him can be described as "weak".
Since this thread is about Damon Hill's reputation, I would put forward that estimation, esteem even, means everything! Schumacher didn't win the title; as everybody could see, he stole it after he found he couldn't win it.

If you read carefully what I wrote, you will find I don't just give Hill some credit. I consider him a double world champion. I do agree with what you wrote about him not running away from Prost or Senna, but he was in both cases very much 'the other driver' in the team, and would "normally" not have won a single title. Which to me is all the more reason to admire how he went about picking up the challenge of facing Benetton and Schumacher and all their cheating.

I believe it's nuance you have a problem with. A driver good enough to almost win two world titles doesn't just crumble like a cookie*. But seeing how corrupt the sport can be will leave its mark on a competitor. I'm perfectly willing to believe you might be incapable of seeing why Hill would have suffered from the double injustice of 1994. Perhaps Hamilton's dip a few years back could make you think again.

But there is one thing I'm sure you will probably understand. Schumacher wasn't just running around with an ill-gotten title in 1995, he had just received the confirmation that whatever he (or his team) did, was perfectly fine. That's what made him an even more formidable obstacle. Because there is nothing anybody could have done better to strengthen his already rock-solid self-belief. The first time that was properly challenged was in 2006, more than a decade later. People had spoken out before, but the FIA turned a deaf ear as well as a blind eye.


There, that's the nuance


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6740
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
You'd also have to consider that Hill had to rely on the deck being stacked massively in his favour for the 1994 title. I'm not so sure you could say he won it as much as it was pretty much spoon fed to him.

Going into the last race, his only realistic competition had been disqualified for four races, allowing Hill a clear run to catch him up. Schumacher had been comfortably been leading Hill in Japan before the safety car mixed things up, while prior to that Hill had only managed to beat Schumacher once on track - once - and even then was helped massively by the fact that Schumacher had to drive most of the race in 5th gear (despite which, he still finished 2nd, a hugely impressive feat and possibly the finest drive he's ever produced).

So yes, Schumacher's actions ended Hill's title hopes that year. But let's not pretend that he would have even been a contender without the massive leg-up he got throughout the season. On track he was less of a match for Schumacher than Rosberg was last year for Hamilton
At first sight you make a good point. But the circumstances were what they were, and nobody forced Schumacher to break the rules at Silverstone*, just as nobody forced Benetton to run an illegal set-up for him at Francorchamps. Let's not forget that it is for those transgressions that Schumacher was punished. The fact he drove an illegal car should have figured in the year's results also, but didn't.

Would you have preferred the 1994 season with Schumacher on foot? Brundle could tell us a thing or two about a team being punished for cheating, and as far as I'm aware, his team only cheated on one count.

* Benetton may have kept their driver out, but every driver knows the meaning of a black flag. That made it his own responsibility.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You'd also have to consider that Hill had to rely on the deck being stacked massively in his favour for the 1994 title. I'm not so sure you could say he won it as much as it was pretty much spoon fed to him.

Going into the last race, his only realistic competition had been disqualified for four races, allowing Hill a clear run to catch him up. Schumacher had been comfortably been leading Hill in Japan before the safety car mixed things up, while prior to that Hill had only managed to beat Schumacher once on track - once - and even then was helped massively by the fact that Schumacher had to drive most of the race in 5th gear (despite which, he still finished 2nd, a hugely impressive feat and possibly the finest drive he's ever produced).

So yes, Schumacher's actions ended Hill's title hopes that year. But let's not pretend that he would have even been a contender without the massive leg-up he got throughout the season. On track he was less of a match for Schumacher than Rosberg was last year for Hamilton
At first sight you make a good point. But the circumstances were what they were, and nobody forced Schumacher to break the rules at Silverstone*, just as nobody forced Benetton to run an illegal set-up for him at Francorchamps. Let's not forget that it is for those transgressions that Schumacher was punished. The fact he drove an illegal car should have figured in the year's results also, but didn't.

Would you have preferred the 1994 season with Schumacher on foot? Brundle could tell us a thing or two about a team being punished for cheating, and as far as I'm aware, his team only cheated on one count.

* Benetton may have kept their driver out, but every driver knows the meaning of a black flag. That made it his own responsibility.

The point is it took four races with his only title challenger unable to score a single point due to being barred for Hill to even be in a position to catch up. If you see that as him being a worthy champion, fair enough, but I see it somewhat differently. Hill needed a lot of help to contest the title in 1994. Put another way, Schumacher had to sit out four races and still never lost the title lead, which is incredibly impressive when you think about it


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 2:53 pm 
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You'd also have to consider that Hill had to rely on the deck being stacked massively in his favour for the 1994 title. I'm not so sure you could say he won it as much as it was pretty much spoon fed to him.

Going into the last race, his only realistic competition had been disqualified for four races, allowing Hill a clear run to catch him up. Schumacher had been comfortably been leading Hill in Japan before the safety car mixed things up, while prior to that Hill had only managed to beat Schumacher once on track - once - and even then was helped massively by the fact that Schumacher had to drive most of the race in 5th gear (despite which, he still finished 2nd, a hugely impressive feat and possibly the finest drive he's ever produced).

So yes, Schumacher's actions ended Hill's title hopes that year. But let's not pretend that he would have even been a contender without the massive leg-up he got throughout the season. On track he was less of a match for Schumacher than Rosberg was last year for Hamilton
At first sight you make a good point. But the circumstances were what they were, and nobody forced Schumacher to break the rules at Silverstone*, just as nobody forced Benetton to run an illegal set-up for him at Francorchamps. Let's not forget that it is for those transgressions that Schumacher was punished. The fact he drove an illegal car should have figured in the year's results also, but didn't.

Would you have preferred the 1994 season with Schumacher on foot? Brundle could tell us a thing or two about a team being punished for cheating, and as far as I'm aware, his team only cheated on one count.

* Benetton may have kept their driver out, but every driver knows the meaning of a black flag. That made it his own responsibility.

The point is it took four races with his only title challenger unable to score a single point due to being barred for Hill to even be in a position to catch up. If you see that as him being a worthy champion, fair enough, but I see it somewhat differently. Hill needed a lot of help to contest the title in 1994. Put another way, Schumacher had to sit out four races and still never lost the title lead, which is incredibly impressive when you think about it


This sounds like a strawman argument - Schumacher was banned for 4 races due to breaches of the rules...out of all the other drivers in the field that year, Hill was the only one to convert that absence to champion competing results.

Hill didn't need any help, he needed level playing field - one that Benetton did not want to happen and habitually and verifiable cheated - that is NOT a level playing field. There was a very open question about the Benetton running traction control that year (never proven so won't include it).

So looking a the proven situation, Hill put the championship in reach when his main rival was out of the running - that is not handing something to him in any reasoned world.

Now onto drivers skills, Hill has never said he was Schumacher's equal, nor anyone else, but we don't live in a black and white world - Hill not being Schumacher's equal does not make Hill a bad driver...not even slightly.

Schumacher was probably the best driver we have ever seen - flawed but a genius. Don't let that take away from Hill's achievements.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
justbeingmiko wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
You'd also have to consider that Hill had to rely on the deck being stacked massively in his favour for the 1994 title. I'm not so sure you could say he won it as much as it was pretty much spoon fed to him.

Going into the last race, his only realistic competition had been disqualified for four races, allowing Hill a clear run to catch him up. Schumacher had been comfortably been leading Hill in Japan before the safety car mixed things up, while prior to that Hill had only managed to beat Schumacher once on track - once - and even then was helped massively by the fact that Schumacher had to drive most of the race in 5th gear (despite which, he still finished 2nd, a hugely impressive feat and possibly the finest drive he's ever produced).

So yes, Schumacher's actions ended Hill's title hopes that year. But let's not pretend that he would have even been a contender without the massive leg-up he got throughout the season. On track he was less of a match for Schumacher than Rosberg was last year for Hamilton
At first sight you make a good point. But the circumstances were what they were, and nobody forced Schumacher to break the rules at Silverstone*, just as nobody forced Benetton to run an illegal set-up for him at Francorchamps. Let's not forget that it is for those transgressions that Schumacher was punished. The fact he drove an illegal car should have figured in the year's results also, but didn't.

Would you have preferred the 1994 season with Schumacher on foot? Brundle could tell us a thing or two about a team being punished for cheating, and as far as I'm aware, his team only cheated on one count.

* Benetton may have kept their driver out, but every driver knows the meaning of a black flag. That made it his own responsibility.

The point is it took four races with his only title challenger unable to score a single point due to being barred for Hill to even be in a position to catch up. If you see that as him being a worthy champion, fair enough, but I see it somewhat differently. Hill needed a lot of help to contest the title in 1994. Put another way, Schumacher had to sit out four races and still never lost the title lead, which is incredibly impressive when you think about it


This sounds like a strawman argument - Schumacher was banned for 4 races due to breaches of the rules...out of all the other drivers in the field that year, Hill was the only one to convert that absence to champion competing results.

Hill didn't need any help, he needed level playing field - one that Benetton did not want to happen and habitually and verifiable cheated - that is NOT a level playing field. There was a very open question about the Benetton running traction control that year (never proven so won't include it).

So looking a the proven situation, Hill put the championship in reach when his main rival was out of the running - that is not handing something to him in any reasoned world.

Now onto drivers skills, Hill has never said he was Schumacher's equal, nor anyone else, but we don't live in a black and white world - Hill not being Schumacher's equal does not make Hill a bad driver...not even slightly.

Schumacher was probably the best driver we have ever seen - flawed but a genius. Don't let that take away from Hill's achievements.

Doesn't fit any definition of the term strawman I'm aware of.

I'm putting it out there that Hill was only in the position he was in 1994 because his competition was temporarily removed from the equation. Which goes directly to the discussion we were having about whether he deserved the 1994 title. Which in turn means it's not a strawman.

Saying " Hill not being Schumacher's equal does not make Hill a bad driver...not even slightly" - now that's a strawman, since no-one's tried to claim he's a bad driver.

You have a point that Hill took advantage of the opportunities offered to him, but it's my opinion that those opportunities were fairly major and should be taken into account. You may disagree, fair enough, but it's relevant to the discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 3:35 pm 
You are right, didnt mean strawman arguement - meant using alternate events to justify a position. Can't remember the term for it now :S

Anyway, healthy debate is great:)

As for Hill, I was pondering the rationale that Hill was handed his position on a plate by someone who wasnt there - but that seems to ignore the reason he wasnt there, cheating. We could argue that any championship is won due to being handed a race (or more) on a plate due to other contenders disadvantages, but in 1994, Schumacher was disqualified for breaching the rules. Hill did not and as such was in the position on his and the team's merits...regardless of Shumachers performance or otherwise


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6740
Location: Belgium
justbeingmiko wrote:
You are right, didnt mean strawman arguement - meant using alternate events to justify a position. Can't remember the term for it now :S
If you remember, please let me know. I keep forgetting what a straw man argument is, and keep having to look it up. At least it made it clear to me Zoue wasn't using one.

Zoue wrote:
You have a point that Hill took advantage of the opportunities offered to him, but it's my opinion that those opportunities were fairly major and should be taken into account. You may disagree, fair enough, but it's relevant to the discussion.
It's relevant, but it doesn't form the only background to the season. You might point out that 'major' would not begin to describe the opportunity Schumacher was given, in not removing his car/team from the championship. One simply can't turn a blind eye to that.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
Fiki wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
You are right, didnt mean strawman arguement - meant using alternate events to justify a position. Can't remember the term for it now :S
If you remember, please let me know. I keep forgetting what a straw man argument is, and keep having to look it up. At least it made it clear to me Zoue wasn't using one.

Zoue wrote:
You have a point that Hill took advantage of the opportunities offered to him, but it's my opinion that those opportunities were fairly major and should be taken into account. You may disagree, fair enough, but it's relevant to the discussion.
It's relevant, but it doesn't form the only background to the season. You might point out that 'major' would not begin to describe the opportunity Schumacher was given, in not removing his car/team from the championship. One simply can't turn a blind eye to that.

Well that would be even more convenient for Hill, wouldn't it? Remove the competition entirely?

There is a debate to be had about how lenient or excessive the punishments for Schumacher were, but whichever way you look at it Hill got where he was in 1994 by having his opposition hobbled. It wasn't just about that last race, although many seem to make it all about that. Hill wouldn't even have been in contention otherwise


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 6:35 pm 
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
You are right, didnt mean strawman arguement - meant using alternate events to justify a position. Can't remember the term for it now :S
If you remember, please let me know. I keep forgetting what a straw man argument is, and keep having to look it up. At least it made it clear to me Zoue wasn't using one.

Zoue wrote:
You have a point that Hill took advantage of the opportunities offered to him, but it's my opinion that those opportunities were fairly major and should be taken into account. You may disagree, fair enough, but it's relevant to the discussion.
It's relevant, but it doesn't form the only background to the season. You might point out that 'major' would not begin to describe the opportunity Schumacher was given, in not removing his car/team from the championship. One simply can't turn a blind eye to that.

Well that would be even more convenient for Hill, wouldn't it? Remove the competition entirely?

There is a debate to be had about how lenient or excessive the punishments for Schumacher were, but whichever way you look at it Hill got where he was in 1994 by having his opposition hobbled. It wasn't just about that last race, although many seem to make it all about that. Hill wouldn't even have been in contention otherwise


I can't remember which it is, either a fallacy or a form of cognitive distortion - been ages since i did it so I will stop trying to label it :)

But back to the point at hand - the debate about the harshness of the punishment notwithstanding, that doesn't detract from the efforts of Hill and his right to be in the position he was in. I still stand by the structure of Hill being the only legitimate championship contender of the two in that season given the volume of races that Schumacher had been disqualified from. Up until that point, Schumy was running away with it, doing what seemed to be a remarkable job. Once it was discovered that various aspects of his challenge were illegal, his run was stopped and Hill was the person who had to drive to win - and Hill did!

I am not sure how that is disagreeable or open to interpretation - illegal means illegal, not fair competition, no comparison possible.

If we do debate it, we are not talking about removing the competition completely, only having the competition and comparison done on a level playing field. And that season of all of them, one has to question every race in 1994 Schumacher entered as to whether it was a legal entry. Was his car legal for every other race? Open to interpretation for sure, but a fair question.

For Hill, removing everyone was not required, he drove in only his second full season in a car that was a handful by anyone's standards and got to a point where the championship was decided at the last race - that is a remarkable achievement, even forgetting the emotional difficulties of that year.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
justbeingmiko wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
justbeingmiko wrote:
You are right, didnt mean strawman arguement - meant using alternate events to justify a position. Can't remember the term for it now :S
If you remember, please let me know. I keep forgetting what a straw man argument is, and keep having to look it up. At least it made it clear to me Zoue wasn't using one.

Zoue wrote:
You have a point that Hill took advantage of the opportunities offered to him, but it's my opinion that those opportunities were fairly major and should be taken into account. You may disagree, fair enough, but it's relevant to the discussion.
It's relevant, but it doesn't form the only background to the season. You might point out that 'major' would not begin to describe the opportunity Schumacher was given, in not removing his car/team from the championship. One simply can't turn a blind eye to that.

Well that would be even more convenient for Hill, wouldn't it? Remove the competition entirely?

There is a debate to be had about how lenient or excessive the punishments for Schumacher were, but whichever way you look at it Hill got where he was in 1994 by having his opposition hobbled. It wasn't just about that last race, although many seem to make it all about that. Hill wouldn't even have been in contention otherwise


I can't remember which it is, either a fallacy or a form of cognitive distortion - been ages since i did it so I will stop trying to label it :)

But back to the point at hand - the debate about the harshness of the punishment notwithstanding, that doesn't detract from the efforts of Hill and his right to be in the position he was in. I still stand by the structure of Hill being the only legitimate championship contender of the two in that season given the volume of races that Schumacher had been disqualified from. Up until that point, Schumy was running away with it, doing what seemed to be a remarkable job. Once it was discovered that various aspects of his challenge were illegal, his run was stopped and Hill was the person who had to drive to win - and Hill did!

I am not sure how that is disagreeable or open to interpretation - illegal means illegal, not fair competition, no comparison possible.

If we do debate it, we are not talking about removing the competition completely, only having the competition and comparison done on a level playing field. And that season of all of them, one has to question every race in 1994 Schumacher entered as to whether it was a legal entry. Was his car legal for every other race? Open to interpretation for sure, but a fair question.

For Hill, removing everyone was not required, he drove in only his second full season in a car that was a handful by anyone's standards and got to a point where the championship was decided at the last race - that is a remarkable achievement, even forgetting the emotional difficulties of that year.

Couple of points here:
Schumacher's run was not stopped because various aspects of his challenge were illegal: he was handed a three race ban for ignoring a black flag (which was admittedly an idiotic thing to do), which in turn had been issued because he didn't come in to serve a penalty for overtaking on the parade lap. So a moment of stupidity handed Hill a three race reprieve, not anything illegal about Schumacher's car nor anything unfair about his competition

Schumacher did receive a further DSQ for having excess wear on his plank at Spa, but there's nothing to suggest this was anything other than an isolated incident so nothing to base any accusations of illegality throughout the season.

Regarding the Williams being a handful: this was indeed the case at the beginning of he year, which made Senna's poles even more impressive, but the car was heavily revised throughout and became progressively more stable. This was evident by Hill's increasing confidence in the car race by race.

I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to suggest Hill was a poor driver by any means, but I think the claims he was robbed in 1994 and that somehow he was the true champion that year tends to ignore the fact that he was demonstrably not the best driver and he required more than a large dose of luck to even be in the position to challenge for the title. I think the notion of him being a victim is a bit overblown.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 6740
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Couple of points here:
Schumacher's run was not stopped because various aspects of his challenge were illegal: he was handed a three race ban for ignoring a black flag (which was admittedly an idiotic thing to do), which in turn had been issued because he didn't come in to serve a penalty for overtaking on the parade lap. So a moment of stupidity handed Hill a three race reprieve, not anything illegal about Schumacher's car nor anything unfair about his competition
You are compressing a number of factors into 'a moment of stupidity', which you really shouldn't. If Schumacher didn't overtake Hill on the parade lap just to taunt him, then he must really have thought himself a fool, thinking about the consequences to come. If he did it on purpose, even more so. I don't know if he ever commented on this at the time, but it is rather odd for a driver not to know the rules any better.

Zoue wrote:
Schumacher did receive a further DSQ for having excess wear on his plank at Spa, but there's nothing to suggest this was anything other than an isolated incident so nothing to base any accusations of illegality throughout the season.
True. However, that does make his disqualification fully in keeping with the rules. And what I found odd, even on the day itself, is how silly Benetton went about trying to explain it away. Even today, there are still people who believe his spin over the Fagnes kerb stones caused it. Even more puzzling, is that a year later (I believe), Pat Symonds came out with another utterly stupid explanation, saying it had been agreed that if the plank still weighed enough, that should also have been alright. (Truth be told, I only found out about this "explanation" years afterwards.)

But, as you say, it must have been an isolated case, as any previous ones should have been reported by post-race scrutineering. Still, that DSQ was fully covered by the rules. There was no way in which Schumacher's "win" could be officialized.

Zoue wrote:
Regarding the Williams being a handful: this was indeed the case at the beginning of he year, which made Senna's poles even more impressive, but the car was heavily revised throughout and became progressively more stable. This was evident by Hill's increasing confidence in the car race by race.
It's an unpopular thing to say, but Senna tried to stay ahead of an illegal car, and it got him killed. After what Jabby Crombac wrote about Hill the previous year, there's every reason to believe Hill was showing the true level of the car's long-run potential in the early part of the year.

Zoue wrote:
I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to suggest Hill was a poor driver by any means, but I think the claims he was robbed in 1994 and that somehow he was the true champion that year tends to ignore the fact that he was demonstrably not the best driver and he required more than a large dose of luck to even be in the position to challenge for the title. I think the notion of him being a victim is a bit overblown.
Zoue, there was no level playing field. Every driver accepts the fact that in a mechanical racing series, the car/bike is the dominant factor. For 1994, we simply don't know where the two cars stood at the beginning of the year, and the illegal fuelling stops skewed the picture probably even more than the illegal software.

If we take the season at face value*, which is after all what the FIA wanted us to do, the final race of the season was the decider. Schumacher threw his car in the wall and he then threw it into his only title contender. That should not be rewarded with a champion's title.

* Meaning we accept the dubious rulings on illegal software (apparently used only in "testing" (to what purpose, I wonder...)) and on the illegal removal of the fuel filter to decrease fuel stop times.

F1 races don't look for the best driver, it looks for the one who ends the season with the most points. In the final race Schumacher caused an avoidable accident, and was not punished. You only need to look at the footage to see who the victim was.

My last point is that, since this thread is about reputations, the whole sordid season of 1994 damaged the reputations of all three drivers involved in the title hunt: Schumacher, Hill and Senna. Of those three, it is Hill's which suffered most from the way FIA acted. Or didn't, for that matter.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 04, 2017 10:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couple of points here:
Schumacher's run was not stopped because various aspects of his challenge were illegal: he was handed a three race ban for ignoring a black flag (which was admittedly an idiotic thing to do), which in turn had been issued because he didn't come in to serve a penalty for overtaking on the parade lap. So a moment of stupidity handed Hill a three race reprieve, not anything illegal about Schumacher's car nor anything unfair about his competition
You are compressing a number of factors into 'a moment of stupidity', which you really shouldn't. If Schumacher didn't overtake Hill on the parade lap just to taunt him, then he must really have thought himself a fool, thinking about the consequences to come. If he did it on purpose, even more so. I don't know if he ever commented on this at the time, but it is rather odd for a driver not to know the rules any better.

Zoue wrote:
Schumacher did receive a further DSQ for having excess wear on his plank at Spa, but there's nothing to suggest this was anything other than an isolated incident so nothing to base any accusations of illegality throughout the season.
True. However, that does make his disqualification fully in keeping with the rules. And what I found odd, even on the day itself, is how silly Benetton went about trying to explain it away. Even today, there are still people who believe his spin over the Fagnes kerb stones caused it. Even more puzzling, is that a year later (I believe), Pat Symonds came out with another utterly stupid explanation, saying it had been agreed that if the plank still weighed enough, that should also have been alright. (Truth be told, I only found out about this "explanation" years afterwards.)

But, as you say, it must have been an isolated case, as any previous ones should have been reported by post-race scrutineering. Still, that DSQ was fully covered by the rules. There was no way in which Schumacher's "win" could be officialized.

Zoue wrote:
Regarding the Williams being a handful: this was indeed the case at the beginning of he year, which made Senna's poles even more impressive, but the car was heavily revised throughout and became progressively more stable. This was evident by Hill's increasing confidence in the car race by race.
It's an unpopular thing to say, but Senna tried to stay ahead of an illegal car, and it got him killed. After what Jabby Crombac wrote about Hill the previous year, there's every reason to believe Hill was showing the true level of the car's long-run potential in the early part of the year.

Zoue wrote:
I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to suggest Hill was a poor driver by any means, but I think the claims he was robbed in 1994 and that somehow he was the true champion that year tends to ignore the fact that he was demonstrably not the best driver and he required more than a large dose of luck to even be in the position to challenge for the title. I think the notion of him being a victim is a bit overblown.
Zoue, there was no level playing field. Every driver accepts the fact that in a mechanical racing series, the car/bike is the dominant factor. For 1994, we simply don't know where the two cars stood at the beginning of the year, and the illegal fuelling stops skewed the picture probably even more than the illegal software.

If we take the season at face value*, which is after all what the FIA wanted us to do, the final race of the season was the decider. Schumacher threw his car in the wall and he then threw it into his only title contender. That should not be rewarded with a champion's title.

* Meaning we accept the dubious rulings on illegal software (apparently used only in "testing" (to what purpose, I wonder...)) and on the illegal removal of the fuel filter to decrease fuel stop times.

F1 races don't look for the best driver, it looks for the one who ends the season with the most points. In the final race Schumacher caused an avoidable accident, and was not punished. You only need to look at the footage to see who the victim was.

My last point is that, since this thread is about reputations, the whole sordid season of 1994 damaged the reputations of all three drivers involved in the title hunt: Schumacher, Hill and Senna. Of those three, it is Hill's which suffered most from the way FIA acted. Or didn't, for that matter.

I agree that there were several moments of stupidity in that initial DSQ that are more than a little puzzling. Overtaking on the parade lap, not once, but twice, is just bizarre. Staying out after a black flag is simply stupid, although I do believe MSC was told to stay out because Benetton believed they could challenge an illegal order, since the rules stated that teams should be informed within 15 laps of any incident, whereas Benetton were only told after 27 laps had passed. So some stupidity by the FIA, too. The point is there is reason to question such a large punishment when the FIA shared at least some of the blame for the events.

I take issue with your assertion that Senna was chasing an illegal car, since this was never proved. If we are to take every allegation as gospel, then let's disqualify Mercedes for their trick suspension these last three years, and Red Bull for the same last year, since that's been the rumour going around. The fact remains that the Benetton was never ruled illegal, aside from the plank incident, so that's a complete non-argument.

As to the removal of the fuel filter, the allegation was that all but four teams did the same that year, which means we should have the title decided between the remaining 8 drivers? McLaren were also ruled to have a gearbox which contravened the rules, so why not pursue them with the same vigour?

In terms of reputation, I'd say Schumacher was the biggest loser that year. If anything, Hill's rose


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 794
The reality is that while i agree MS should have been disqualified in Adelaide - the Benetton team should twice have been disqualified in 1994 - illegal software (only on MS' car BTW) for which B lied about - let go. Then there was the illegal fuel rig tampering - for which B lied about - and which could have cost lots of lives - for which B got no effective penalty. Both of those 'should' have had the TEAM disqualified.

In addition to MS deliberately driving into Damon (the words of champion Barry Sheene) - there is no doubt that 1994 should have been Damon's and only those who support deliberate cheating can possibly suggest otherwise


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 20637
F1Oz wrote:
The reality is that while i agree MS should have been disqualified in Adelaide - the Benetton team should twice have been disqualified in 1994 - illegal software (only on MS' car BTW) for which B lied about - let go. Then there was the illegal fuel rig tampering - for which B lied about - and which could have cost lots of lives - for which B got no effective penalty. Both of those 'should' have had the TEAM disqualified.

In addition to MS deliberately driving into Damon (the words of champion Barry Sheene) - there is no doubt that 1994 should have been Damon's and only those who support deliberate cheating can possibly suggest otherwise

When people make idiotic statements like this it really gets my goat. It's really not down to you to determine what opinions people may have regarding 1994. Who the hell appointed you judge and jury?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 2:49 am
Posts: 794
Zoue - it is a fact that Benetton had illegal software.

It is a fact that Benetton illegally modified its fuel rig (and the massive advantage B had in terms of pit stop times (and MS driving fast on light fuel loads just coincidentally disappeared after this was discovered?)

Those two things are FACTS - and have been objectively PROVEN post 1994 - so what planet are you on?

Do you dispute that this is so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 12043
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Couple of points here:
Schumacher's run was not stopped because various aspects of his challenge were illegal: he was handed a three race ban for ignoring a black flag (which was admittedly an idiotic thing to do), which in turn had been issued because he didn't come in to serve a penalty for overtaking on the parade lap. So a moment of stupidity handed Hill a three race reprieve, not anything illegal about Schumacher's car nor anything unfair about his competition
You are compressing a number of factors into 'a moment of stupidity', which you really shouldn't. If Schumacher didn't overtake Hill on the parade lap just to taunt him, then he must really have thought himself a fool, thinking about the consequences to come. If he did it on purpose, even more so. I don't know if he ever commented on this at the time, but it is rather odd for a driver not to know the rules any better.

Zoue wrote:
Schumacher did receive a further DSQ for having excess wear on his plank at Spa, but there's nothing to suggest this was anything other than an isolated incident so nothing to base any accusations of illegality throughout the season.
True. However, that does make his disqualification fully in keeping with the rules. And what I found odd, even on the day itself, is how silly Benetton went about trying to explain it away. Even today, there are still people who believe his spin over the Fagnes kerb stones caused it. Even more puzzling, is that a year later (I believe), Pat Symonds came out with another utterly stupid explanation, saying it had been agreed that if the plank still weighed enough, that should also have been alright. (Truth be told, I only found out about this "explanation" years afterwards.)

But, as you say, it must have been an isolated case, as any previous ones should have been reported by post-race scrutineering. Still, that DSQ was fully covered by the rules. There was no way in which Schumacher's "win" could be officialized.

Zoue wrote:
Regarding the Williams being a handful: this was indeed the case at the beginning of he year, which made Senna's poles even more impressive, but the car was heavily revised throughout and became progressively more stable. This was evident by Hill's increasing confidence in the car race by race.
It's an unpopular thing to say, but Senna tried to stay ahead of an illegal car, and it got him killed. After what Jabby Crombac wrote about Hill the previous year, there's every reason to believe Hill was showing the true level of the car's long-run potential in the early part of the year.

Zoue wrote:
I feel I should point out that I'm not trying to suggest Hill was a poor driver by any means, but I think the claims he was robbed in 1994 and that somehow he was the true champion that year tends to ignore the fact that he was demonstrably not the best driver and he required more than a large dose of luck to even be in the position to challenge for the title. I think the notion of him being a victim is a bit overblown.
Zoue, there was no level playing field. Every driver accepts the fact that in a mechanical racing series, the car/bike is the dominant factor. For 1994, we simply don't know where the two cars stood at the beginning of the year, and the illegal fuelling stops skewed the picture probably even more than the illegal software.

If we take the season at face value*, which is after all what the FIA wanted us to do, the final race of the season was the decider. Schumacher threw his car in the wall and he then threw it into his only title contender. That should not be rewarded with a champion's title.

* Meaning we accept the dubious rulings on illegal software (apparently used only in "testing" (to what purpose, I wonder...)) and on the illegal removal of the fuel filter to decrease fuel stop times.

F1 races don't look for the best driver, it looks for the one who ends the season with the most points. In the final race Schumacher caused an avoidable accident, and was not punished. You only need to look at the footage to see who the victim was.

My last point is that, since this thread is about reputations, the whole sordid season of 1994 damaged the reputations of all three drivers involved in the title hunt: Schumacher, Hill and Senna. Of those three, it is Hill's which suffered most from the way FIA acted. Or didn't, for that matter.

I agree that there were several moments of stupidity in that initial DSQ that are more than a little puzzling. Overtaking on the parade lap, not once, but twice, is just bizarre. Staying out after a black flag is simply stupid, although I do believe MSC was told to stay out because Benetton believed they could challenge an illegal order, since the rules stated that teams should be informed within 15 laps of any incident, whereas Benetton were only told after 27 laps had passed. So some stupidity by the FIA, too. The point is there is reason to question such a large punishment when the FIA shared at least some of the blame for the events.

I take issue with your assertion that Senna was chasing an illegal car, since this was never proved. If we are to take every allegation as gospel, then let's disqualify Mercedes for their trick suspension these last three years, and Red Bull for the same last year, since that's been the rumour going around. The fact remains that the Benetton was never ruled illegal, aside from the plank incident, so that's a complete non-argument.

As to the removal of the fuel filter, the allegation was that all but four teams did the same that year, which means we should have the title decided between the remaining 8 drivers? McLaren were also ruled to have a gearbox which contravened the rules, so why not pursue them with the same vigour?

In terms of reputation, I'd say Schumacher was the biggest loser that year. If anything, Hill's rose


Can't agree with that. Schumacher's reputation rose massively in 94. Going into the season he was regarded as a star for the future, by the end of it he was regarded as the best driver in the sport.


Last edited by mikeyg123 on Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lotus49, pokerman, Stanton, Verstappen33, Yellowbin74 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group