28 replies to this topic

[Senna]

Is Damon Hill a worthy champion?



[The article is quite old (circa late 1996) and thus the stats are outdated e.g. Jacques Villeneuve’s win rate was then 25% and is now 7.2%.  However, it gives interesting historical background to the world championship]



Damon Hill winning the Formula 1 World Championship will lead to a whole new series of disputes among race fans. Was it just the car? How does he compare to the World Champions of the past? Do the statistics give a false impression?

To place Damon in a historical perspective is, of course, impossible. Generations of racing journalists have been asked to put together silly lists of "The top 10 racing drivers of all-time". But how can one possibly compare different racing eras, with the different cars and different demands on the drivers? How would a Tazio Nuvolari or a Juan-Manuel Fangio do in a modern F1 car? We will never know.

There is a marked tendency in these lists to overstate the importance of the men of the moment. Some drivers will fade with time.

The only thing one can really say with any certainty is that anyone who has won the World Championship was an enormous talent and all had good cars in which to do it. Perhaps sometimes there were better cars and better drivers who did not win the World Championship but that is the essence of racing. You do not win the World title in a bad car just as a cart horse does not win the Grand National.

One of the great skills of the most famous World Champions was the ability to pick the right car at the right time. The master of this was Fangio who won his five titles with four different manufacturers: Maserati (1954-1957), Alfa Romeo (1951), Mercedes (1955) and Ferrari (1956). Fangio was the first driver to go from top team to top team to find the best car and few have done it since with success.

Racers who switch teams and win second and third titles should, logically, be considered in a better light than those who won all their titles with the same team and yet, when you read the lists of who people think were the best drivers of all time, you will always see Jackie Stewart, Jim Clark and Ayrton Senna - all of whom won all their titles with the same teams.

In the same lists you may not see Jack Brabham who won titles with Cooper and then with his own cars; Emerson Fittipaldi won titles with both Lotus and McLaren but his name is rarely on the lists. Niki Lauda, Nelson Piquet and Alain Prost all won titles with different teams.

Finding the best car may be the logical thing to do if you are the top driver but a lot of World Champions jump to the best overall package - with money as a major consideration. Their ambition tends to be blunted by success. Some think they will be able to build up a team to be successful - like Michael Schumacher is currently doing with Ferrari and Damon Hill is hoping to do with Arrows next year but they will sometimes find themselves struggling as James Hunt did with Wolf or Emerson Fittipaldi did with Copersucar.

Today, more than ever, being in the right car at the right time is important. Damon Hill was fortunate that he was in the right place at the right time in 1991 when Williams was looking for a test driver. Two years later he was lucky to be in the right place when Nigel Mansell stomped off to Indycars just after Riccardo Patrese had signed a deal with Benetton. Williams had Prost under contract but suddenly there was a gap for Damon. He had earned that chance as the team's test driver. Patrick Head is not an easy man to convince but Damon did it and it was Head who convinced a sceptical Frank Williams. Damon learned from Prost in 1993 and was soon capable of beating Alain. He learned from Senna before Ayrton was killed. And then, in painful circumstances, he became the team leader.

His starts-to-wins ratio is one of the most impressive in Formula 1 history. Fangio is way ahead of everyone with a 47% win rate. Alberto Ascari, the great Ferrari champion of the early 1950s, recorded a 41% rate and Jim Clark's record with Lotus in the early 1960s stands at 35%.

After Suzuka Damon has a win rate of 31% ahead of Jackie Stewart (27%), Michael Schumacher (26%), Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost (25%) and Stirling Moss (24%). Jacques Villeneuve has a 25% record as well - four wins in 16 races.

By comparison Nigel Mansell has a win rate of only 16%. Despite this heavyweight record Damon is still not considered to be an all-time great. People argue that he has always had the best car at his disposal and should have won World titles in 1994, 1995 and 1996. They forget that Hill's career has coincided with that of Schumacher.

Damon does have weaknesses - but most champions have had their faults. The remarkable thing about Hill is that he continually learns and improves. If people doubts him, he proves them wrong. He makes mistakes and admits them, however embarrassing that may be. Because he was thrust into the spotlight early on his errors have been well-publicized. Most drivers have the good fortune to make their mistakes in backwater teams.

The most remarkable thing about Damon is that he has won the World title with ever having raced go-karts. In the modern era that is extraordinary. The last World Champion without karting experience was Niki Lauda in 1984. Karting is a world in which drivers in their teens develop their driving skills. Diving passes become a reflex for the kartists. It becomes second nature. That is something that Damon never experienced. This has sometimes meant that he been slower through traffic than the other stars of today - all of whom (except Gerhard Berger) were karting stars.

The ability to overtake is just one of many skills needed by the top F1 drivers of today. It is not just a question of who can drive the fastest. One must be able to drive not only fast but consistently fast. One must be enormously dedicated, motivated and fit. One must understand the highly complex engineering which goes on in F1 and help guide the engineers to give one a better car. One has to understand race strategy and how races can be won and lost. At the same time one needs to be patient with media and able to withstand pressure both on and off the race tracks; one must present the right image for the sponsors.

But probably the most important talent of all these days is that one must have the ability to be in the right car at the right time. The greatest driver in the world is not necessarily the fastest man on the race track. The fastest man in the world will do nothing in F1 if he is driving a Forti. Some drivers surround themselves with managers and flunkies to do their thinking for them. Some manage by themselves. Some do not manage at all. Damon has done most of his thinking for himself. He is not closed off to people by over-protective managers who get upset if anyone dares to speak to their driver without permission. He has a small staff to deflect some of the pressures of being famous but usually at races he has a few mates knocking around. He has shown himself to the a consummate professional. Yes, he has made mistakes but if you do not make mistakes you do not win.

But where does he stand in relation to other great drivers. Being a World Champion is the ultimate accolade but even that does not always tell the whole story. Some would argue that the best driver of all never won a World title - Stirling Moss. Some cite Jacques Villeneuve's father as Gilles as the fastest driver ever. Villeneuve could have won the 1979 World Championship but obeyed team orders and let Jody Scheckter win. Ronnie Peterson was a wonderful talent and a gentleman as well. He stood back and let Mario Andretti win the 1978 title. Peterson's logic was that Andretti had developed the car and he had signed a contract to be Mario's number two.

In 1956 Peter Collins did the same for Fangio, handing over his car to the Argentine in Italy.

"I never thought that a 25-year-old guy like me could take on such a big responsibility," Collins told Enzo Ferrari. "I have lots of time ahead of me. Fangio should stay World Champion for another year. He deserves it."

But Collins never did win the title, he died two years later at the Nurburgring.

Such noble gestures are unthinkable these days, to such an extent that Williams doesn't even bother having a number one and a number two. It is every man for himself. There have been times when drivers have helped one another. In 1991 in Suzuka, for example, Gerhard Berger sacrificed his race to help Ayrton Senna win the title. Gerhard forced the pace early on, ruining his tyres but snaring Nigel Mansell into giving chase. Mansell went off. Senna won the title but at the finish he pulled over and let Berger win the race. Mansell did similar at Suzuka in 1992, giving a win to Riccardo Patrese.

Having a technical advantage is part of the game and most champions have happily admitted that they would not have won without the car. Jack Brabham won two titles for Cooper in 1959 and 1960 because he was driving a rear-engined car while others struggled with front-engined machinery. In 1966 he won with a Repco engine in the first year of a new formula. You can say he enjoyed a technical advantage on all occasions but he was still a great champion.

Some would argue that Phil Hill only won the 1961 title because the shark nose Ferrari was completely dominant and his team mate Wolfgang Von Trips was killed at Monza but the American had the speed of a champion, as he proved by becoming the first man to lap the old Nurburgring under eight minutes.

Jimmy Clark won his two titles for Lotus and no-one doubted his talents.

"Jimmy would do well in any car," said Lotus boss Colin Chapman, "but nobody could do so well in a Lotus."

In 1964 John Surtees won the title for Ferrari but only after an extraordinary showdown in Mexico City. It was a three-way fight for the Championship. Surtees had to finish second to win the title but was fourth at the start of the last lap. Clark was set the win the title but his engine blew on that very last lap and Surtees's team mate Lorenzo Bandini pulled over to give John the extra place he needed. He won the title on the last lap of the last race. Clark was unlucky but Surtees was in a position to exploit that misfortune.

There was another three-man showdown in 1968 in Mexico City in which Denny Hulme (the 1967 Champion) was sidelined with a fire and Jackie Stewart with a fuel pump problem and so Graham Hill won the title.

In 1970 Jochen Rindt climbed out of his Lotus at Hockenheim and commented that "even a monkey could win in this car". He did but he died in the car at Monza when a mechanical problem threw the car out of control.

Having the best car does not guarantee success. Jackie Stewart's three titles with Ken Tyrrell in 1969, 1971 and 1973 were not as clear cut as the statistics suggest. In 1973 the Lotuses were quicker than Jackie's Tyrrell but Emerson Fittipaldi and Ronnie Peterson split points between them and allowed Stewart to sneak through to win.

The 1974 season should have been Clay Regazzoni's year for Ferrari but he had a series of mechanical failures which robbed him of the title. Young Niki Lauda, his team mate, was still making mistakes and so did not challenge Clay. Fittipaldi sneaked through for McLaren to snatch the title. In 1975, 1976 and 1977 the Ferrari was the dominant car. Lauda won in 1975 but in 1976 nearly lost his life in a fiery accident at the Nurburgring. He missed three races. James Hunt was also deprived of three sets of points because of technical infringements. Hunt won the title when Lauda pulled of the dramatic wet race in Fuji. Did Hunt deserve his title? Years later Lauda admitted that James had beaten him with an inferior car.

Hunt had a quicker car in 1977 but it was late arriving and so Lauda won the title that year.

In 1978 Lotus was dominant but in 1979 it was completely different story as Ligier faded, Williams was late becoming competitive and Scheckter won the title for Ferrari. You could argue that he did not deserve his title but Gilles Villeneuve obviously thought he did...

In 1980 Alan Jones was dominant, making the most of his FW07 but the following year he was outpaced by Carlos Reutemann - who disobeyed team orders to win in Brazil. Thereafter the Williams team backed Reutemann but Carlos was outpsyched by Nelson Piquet in Las Vegas and lost the title. And so it goes on. You can argue a case against most World Champions. Keke Rosberg won the title in 982 with one win in a year when Ferrari was dominant but Ferrari's drivers Gilles Villeneuve and Didier Pironi were both involved in cataclysmic accidents. In the years that followed Keke proved his Champion status with some magical victories.

Alain Prost and Nigel Mansell both took a long time to win their first titles: Alain had near-misses in 1983 and 1984 before winning in 1985. He then won an extraordinary victory in 1986, edging out Williams drivers Nelson Piquet and Nigel Mansell when the Williams was clearly a better car.

Mansell should have won the title in 1991 but Senna beat him in an inferior car. Nigel finally won the Championship in 1992 and no-one would argue that he did not deserve that win.

So it really is not worth arguing with one another. Damon is the World Champion and deserves to be. And if you don't accept that, listen to what Michael Schumacher - that wellknown Damon Hill fan - had to say at Suzuka.

"He has waited a long time for it. For sure it was tough. The only thing you can say is congratulations. He really fought for it. Obviously I really feel he deserved it. "

[AutoRacer5]

I think he deserved it. The car was magnificent, and Damon was on top of his game, he didnt let Adelaide 1994 get to him that year.

[Senna]

AutoRacer5, on Jan 19 2006, 12:00 AM, said:

I think he deserved it. The car was magnificent, and Damon was on top of his game, he didnt let Adelaide 1994 get to him that year.

Damon beat Jacques ergo Damon deserved the title.  I think the article makes a good point, if you are a world champion you have to be good even if the car is excellent as the FW18 most certainly was.

[monza gorilla]

Excellent stuff Senna.

[cristiano84]

Well the article also proves that Damon,having started late and having not experienced karting had something less than his rivals..the natural driving instinct.He had to learn when he was already 25...this is something that has a big influence on a driver's skills,expecially if you consider that the only drivers who have started late in modern f.1 like Damon did are none other than Sato,Monteiro and Karthikeyan.....

Furthemore his title rival in 1996, given the big advantage of their machinery, was his teammate, Jacques Villeneuve and he was..a rookie.
A driver first rival is his team mate...Damon did beat convincingly just three of his team mates: David Coulthard in his rookie season (1994),when the young scot was rushed in the car without enough experience and in difficult circumstances,another rookie in the shape of Jacques Villeneuve in 1996 and the all time greatest pay driver Pedro Paulo Diniz in 1997. In 1993 he was beaten by an old Alain Prost,well on the sliding phase of his career and after one season out of racing, in 1995 DC had the upper hand over Damon n qualifying,in 1998 the same happened with Ralf Schumacher who could have won at Spa if not for team orders.Then in 1999 Frentzen completely destroyed Damon and forced him to retirement

[monza gorilla]

The same could be said of his father. They were both in the right place at the right time and capitalised on that. I don't think HHF forced Damon into retirement. He retired because he simply didn't want to do it anymore. Just as James Hunt did, although James at least left as soon as he realised it was time to stop.

I don't think that there has been an unworthy champion. Some fortunate ones, perhaps, but all worthy nonetheless.

[Wez]

He undoubtedly had the fastest car by far, but I would agree he did deserve it!

[jemstride]

Of course he deserved it. 8 wins is impressive, cristiano clearly doesnt know much about Hill's career

[Wez]

jemstride, on Jan 20 2006, 01:17 PM, said:

Of course he deserved it. 8 wins is impressive, cristiano clearly doesnt know much about Hill's career

O Jem... So you also think Alonso deserved it with 7 wins then. I like it

[ecapdeville]

Wez, on Jan 20 2006, 06:03 AM, said:

O Jem... So you also think Alonso deserved it with 7 wins then. I like it

Oh no...not again please!  

[Jenson_Rules]

lol!

Every wdc is deserving imo!

[funkejay]

cristiano84, on Jan 19 2006, 04:49 AM, said:

Well the article also proves that Damon,having started late and having not experienced karting had something less than his rivals..the natural driving instinct.He had to learn when he was already 25...this is something that has a big influence on a driver's skills,expecially if you consider that the only drivers who have started late in modern f.1 like Damon did are none other than Sato,Monteiro and Karthikeyan.....

Furthemore his title rival in 1996, given the big advantage of their machinery, was his teammate, Jacques Villeneuve and he was..a rookie.
A driver first rival is his team mate...Damon did beat convincingly just three of his team mates: David Coulthard in his rookie season (1994),when the young scot was rushed in the car without enough experience and in difficult circumstances,another rookie in the shape of Jacques Villeneuve in 1996 and the all time greatest pay driver Pedro Paulo Diniz in 1997. In 1993 he was beaten by an old Alain Prost,well on the sliding phase of his career and after one season out of racing, in 1995 DC had the upper hand over Damon n qualifying,in 1998 the same happened with Ralf Schumacher who could have won at Spa if not for team orders.Then in 1999 Frentzen completely destroyed Damon and forced him to retirement

I take issue with your comment that DH convincingly beat JV in 1996, if by that you mean he comprehensively beat the young Canadian in what was then only his rookie season.

JV took the race for the championship to the wire where DH only managed to secure the title in the last race of the season, despite having spent four more years in the Team (as both race and test driver) and countless thousands more miles in a Williams F1 car.

Despite that, JV set more fastest laps that year than DH (6-5), and would have faired even better in the final standings had it not been for a combination of mechanical problems (Australia - engine / Japan - wheel)  and collisions caused by other drivers (San Marino - suspension failure after being hit by Alesi / Monaco - collision caused by Badoer).

Comparatively, of DH's four DNF(s) of 1996, two were as a result of driver errors - a spin in Spain and another at Monza, wheres JV only had one spin in his four DNF(s), and that in only his second race in F1 at Interlagos. DH's other DNF(s) were an engine failure while leading at the eventful 1996 Monaco race, and a wheel failure in Britain while trailing behind JV in fourth (JV, who had more than a 20 sec lead on DH at that  point, went on to win, making it his second victory in F1).

Another interesting statistic is that despite having an equal number of race finishes (each had 12 finishes out of 16 races) JV finished on the podium in every event save one (Monza - where DH spun off), whereas DH missed the podium on two occassions (Nurburgring - DH finished a rather shabby 4th, whereas JV scored his first F1 win, and Spa - where JV finished 2nd to DH's 5th place - in fairness, although JV lead DH all day, they were both caught out by the confusion created by the other JV - Jos the Boss' accident and the ensuing pit lane scramble).

More importantly, all the pundits had thought Damon would have the measure of the young Cdn from the very start of the season, which he clearly did not.

"Jacques was mightily impressive right from the start. The young French-Canadian did everything right. He arrived in Australia with 9000 kilometres of testing behind him. In truth there was no pressure on him as he had nothing to lose. Expectations were not high, despite the fact that Jacques came to F1 from an Indycar title and an Indianapolis 500 win. The general feeling had been that it would take Jacques some time to be able to match Damon Hill lap for lap. It did not. And having been up with Damon throughout practice he took pole position with a late-session burst in qualifying....

"Jacques's [race] performance had the pundits jumping up and down with excitement. It was impressive. He led Hill early on, setting a string of fastest laps but never had more than a second or so in hand. The pair were pretty balanced in their pit stops although Damon emerged in the lead - by the skin of his teeth.

"He arrived in the first corner with new cold tyres while Jacques was in his shadow and hot to trot. Jacques did not sit and wait, he forced his way through. Damon responded as soon as his tyres were up to speed and clawed right back onto Jacques's tail. This time the pressure paid off. Jacques misjudged it at the first corner and went for a little lawn-mowing.

"I thought he'd lost it," said Hill. "I thought he might catch me when he came back onto the track so I was going to one side. Then he started coming across the track and I had to lift off. When I got back on the power again he had straightened it all out. It was a bit scary."

"A few laps later the white sections on Hill's Williams began to turn slightly brown and Villeneuve's car had the occasional puff of smoke. He was losing oil - and Damon was collecting it."

source: http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr582.html.

From there we all know how the race ended, but it was, nevertheless, one of the most impressive debuts in F1 history, and a shocking wake-up call to DH.

Despite that, DH was chased by the young rookie all season, who clawed his way back from a 25 point deficit at the midpoint of the season (DH led JV 63-38 after the 9th round in France) to take the championship race to the final event in Japan. Despite scoring the fastest lap of the race, JV spun off with a wheel problem on lap 36, after which DH went on to cruise to an easy victory and the WDC.

So, in fairness both to DH and JV, it was a closely fought battle all season, with DH beating the rookie to the WDC, but not by the margin many on the forum believe.

Despite this, I am not one of those who say that DH didn't deserve his title. He was certainly instrumental in the development of the FW18 and did a good job of recovering from a few very rough seasons to come back and win the WDC, which is never easy under any circumstances, no matter what anyone might say.

Nevertheless, DH may very well have the notoriety of being (perhaps) the only WDC driver to have not been retained by his team to drive the year after winning the WDC. (I say perhaps because I am not entirely certain that he stands alone in that regard - I would very much appreciate if some of the other elder forum members could help determine if anyone else suffered the same ignominy - BTW, I'm talking to you Senna, Pumpdoc, and Monza Gorilla.......)

In any event, even if there have been others, it is a short list, and one that no WDC wants to be on. I don't know what that says about DH, but it certainly meant that neither Frank Williams or Patrick Head were particularly impressed by him in 1996.

Despite all this, to the extent that any WDC is a title worth having, it was DH's in 1996, and no-one can ever take that from him.

(how can you tell I'm home sick today with little else to do........)

[YHR]

That was quite the recap.  I was impressed by Damon Hill in 1996.  As much as I hoped for JV to turn the F1 world upside and win the championship in his first year, I realized the Hill was indeed a very quick driver, and deserving of the WDC.

"In any event, even if there have been others, it is a short list, and one that no WDC wants to be on. I don't know what that says about DH, but it certainly meant that neither Frank Williams or Patrick Head were particularly impressed by him in 1996"


The list is longer then you think!!.  Williams is known for his belief that all it takes is a good driver to win the WDC, when you build the best car.  He has never been held ransom by a driver, and lets them know they are expendable any time they start asking for the moon

Edited by YHR, 21 January 2006 - 12:53 AM.

[michelfx]

YHR, on Jan 21 2006, 12:47 AM, said:

That was quite the recap.  I was impressed by Damon Hill in 1996.  As much as I hoped for JV to turn the F1 world upside and win the championship in his first year, I realized the Hill was indeed a very quick driver, and deserving of the WDC.

"In any event, even if there have been others, it is a short list, and one that no WDC wants to be on. I don't know what that says about DH, but it certainly meant that neither Frank Williams or Patrick Head were particularly impressed by him in 1996"
The list is longer then you think!!.  Williams is known for his belief that all it takes is a good driver to win the WDC, when you build the best car.  He has never been held ransom by a driver, and lets them know they are expendable any time they start asking for the moon

you rock, you know it

[funkejay]

YHR, on Jan 20 2006, 06:47 PM, said:

The list is longer then you think!!.  Williams is known for his belief that all it takes is a good driver to win the WDC, when you build the best car. He has never been held ransom by a driver, and lets them know they are expendable any time they start asking for the moon

I totally agree YHR, but that's not what I was getting at - perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly enough.

What I was talking about was the fact that by the three quarter point of the season, FW and PH were so disillusioned with DH that they had already signed HHF for the following year, without even talking to DH about renewing his contract. It's not that Hill was asking too much, Williams simply didn't want him at any price, and didn't even bother discussing an extension of his contract with him.

We're all familiar with Williams' tenacity and the relatively minimal value he places on drivers, but historically he has at least attempted to negotiate an extension with the drivers that have won WDC(s) in his team. It may not always work out, but there has generally always been an attempt made to retain each Champion (with the exception of Hill).

A quick look at the history of each of the 7 drivers to win the WDC at Williams will help reveal the uniqueness of the situation faced by DH at the end of '96.

Alan Jones - won the '80 WDC at Williams and was kept on by the team for '81.

Keke Rosberg - won the '82 WDC at Williams and was kept on by the team for '83.

Nelson Piquet - won the '87 WDC at Williams and was offered a ride by Williams for '88, but chose to follow the money and go to Lotus.

Nigel Mansell - won the '92 WDC at Williams and left for CART in America in '93 after a disagreement with Williams over money.

Alain Prost - won the '93 WDC at Williams and chose to retire at the end of the year rather than partner Senna in '94, whom Williams was keen to sign.

Damon Hill - won the '96 WDC at Williams and switched to Arrows the following year as Williams had by then already signed the relatively less experienced HHF for '97.

Jacques Villeneuve - won the '97 WDC at Williams and was kept on by the team for '98.

Of these seven WDC, only Hill was faced without any option to continue with Williams after having won the Championship with the team. To make matters even worse, the decision not to offer him an extension (and sign someone else) had been taken well before he had won the Championship.

I'm not saying that DH didn't turn things around miraculously in '96, after some pretty rough times in the preceeding three years at Williams, but there's no getting around that he was treated pretty shabbily, much more so than any other WDC at Williams, either before him or after.

[YHR]

Very true.  Hill was not given the choice.  HHF was nowhere near good enough, and in hindsight a JV, DH duo would have seemed far better. In the end they maximized their opportunites to win the WCC with the drivers they had, as the 98 car was a pig, and they really haven't been close since.

[nojvnof1]

Quote

Some cite Jacques Villeneuve's father as Gilles as the fastest driver ever.

I'm one of those people. He and Senna would run each other very close in the sheer speed category.

To the topic though, of course Hill is a worthy champion. No WDC isn't worthy of the honour. Interestingly, Hill and Jacques share something in common. Jacques also did not start his career in go-karts. He started his motor racing career in Italian Touring Cars at 17.

[michelfx]

nojvnof1, on Jan 21 2006, 11:07 AM, said:

I'm one of those people. He and Senna would run each other very close in the sheer speed category.

To the topic though, of course Hill is a worthy champion. No WDC isn't worthy of the honour. Interestingly, Hill and Jacques share something in common. Jacques also did not start his career in go-karts. He started his motor racing career in Italian Touring Cars at 17.

Gilles was very fast but he was on the hairy edge a lot of times and a bit dangerous. It certainly wouldn't fly today, he would have a lot of penalties. The FIA is much stricter. Also, he started as a kid on a snowmobile and that's all he really did until he drove that direct film car in the Atlantic series. Maybe ecapdeville has a picture for the occasion, that would be great.

Edited by michelfx, 21 January 2006 - 02:31 PM.

[cavallino]

Any driver who does not win the championship in the best car on the grid is not a top driver. Damon is a luckier version of Coulthard, and beat JV just like DC beat KR in 2002. overrated by guess who - the british press..

Edited by cavallino, 21 January 2006 - 03:50 PM.

[monza gorilla]

cavallino, on Jan 21 2006, 03:49 PM, said:

Any driver who does not win the championship in the best car on the grid is not a top driver.

Think about what you've just posted. Then you'll realise that it's as wrong as wrong can be.

[Senna]

monza gorilla, on Jan 21 2006, 05:54 PM, said:

Think about what you've just posted. Then you'll realise that it's as wrong as wrong can be.

Indeed.

[funkejay]

cavallino, on Jan 21 2006, 09:49 AM, said:

Any driver who does not win the championship in the best car on the grid is not a top driver.

I think there may be some confusion over what you're trying to say Cavallino, perhaps you may want to rephrase it...... if your comment is to be taken literally, it would mean that (assuming the McLaren was the best car on the grid in '05 - which many believe it was) you think Kimi is not a top driver, which he certainly his.

[pumpdoc]

funkejay, on Jan 21 2006, 11:26 AM, said:

I think there may be some confusion over what you're trying to say Cavallino, perhaps you may want to rephrase it...... if your comment is to be taken literally, it would mean that (assuming the McLaren was the best car on the grid in '05 - which many believe it was) you think Kimi is not a top driver, which he certainly his.

I agree.......................

[Karta]

There is difference of best vs fastest, but lets keep to Hill.

[Wez]

Karta, on Jan 23 2006, 10:55 AM, said:

There is difference of best vs fastest, but lets keep to Hill.

Fastest sets the lap record and lifts the crowd moments before blowing his engine 'unluckily', the Best becomes world champion!

Generally the Best does become WC (but not always).
In 1996 the Best won, as was the case last season

Edited by Wez, 23 January 2006 - 03:03 PM.

[michelfx]

Wez, on Jan 23 2006, 03:02 PM, said:

Fastest sets the lap record and lifts the crowd moments before blowing his engine 'unluckily', the Best becomes world champion!

Generally the Best does become WC (but not always).
In 1996 the Best won, as was the case last season

you are wrong my friend the most reliable car took it.Not much to choose between kimi and alonso but kimi had the edge and you should be able to see that. pretty elementary

[Wez]

michelfx, on Jan 23 2006, 05:07 PM, said:

you are wrong my friend the most reliable car took it.Not much to choose between kimi and alonso but kimi had the edge and you should be able to see that. pretty elementary

Sorry mate, you wrong... You are of course welcome to your own opinion though!
Im not even going to explain why Alonso was better than Kimi in 2005 simply because its been said dozens of times before you got here.

BTW, Alonso won by a massive margin in the end, not by 1 or 2 points.
And... have you never stopped to think that maybe the Mclarens were so fast because they were sacrificing reliability for raw speed.

[narain fan]

Wez, on Jan 23 2006, 08:46 PM, said:

BTW, Alonso won by a massive margin in the end, not by 1 or 2 points.
And... have you never stopped to think that maybe the Mclarens were so fast because they were sacrificing reliability for raw speed.

indeed
and also he maintained the 20 point lead for more or less the entire season

[Karta]

Poor Hill -- first JV seems to take over thread and now Alonso vs KR He just dont seem to get attention.

Anyways, imo he deserved it. And if you want comparison then who of current drivers can say in order to win they have had to win (future) champion?