|
Post by charleselan on Aug 5, 2018 17:23:17 GMT
Here is an interesting one, or as the University essay questioner would put it "discuss", Would you have bet your house on Niki Lauda after 1971/2 or even 3?
|
|
|
Post by mikael on Aug 6, 2018 6:52:13 GMT
Here is an interesting one, or as the University essay questioner would put it "discuss", Would you have bet your house on Niki Lauda after 1971/2 or even 3? It's true; while he made a good appearance in '73, he had just one finish in the points, a fifth on Zolder in Belgium, earning him his two points for the entire season. But actually, his teammate Clay Regazzoni didn't do any better; he, too, scored 2 points for 1973. And he, too, was picked up by Ferrari for '74. Nürburgring 1973.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 9:35:15 GMT
Now as then, everybody is assessed, either through track record or cultural bias. The latter more previously, but for a sport where the allocation of places available is much less that the number of hopefuls, that is almost inevitable – ask Fisichella.
Eventually some of the young drivers will have to get to the top table and establish themselves. That is natural, generational change with new talent pushing to get assessed. However, very very few will make the grade, most will drop out or settle for what is available. Not necessarily for lack of skills.
Doing the maths to the current situation, there are only four winning seats, one of which is reserved to a “designated number two”, the other to a “de facto number two” (he must match and beat Hamilton every other weekend, a tall order). Eventually one – one – will have to get there and have enough personality (beside the skills) to drive a wedge and make himself room at the top.
Manufacturers may groom, following Red Bull’s lead, their future drivers in satellite teams, and that makes the bottle neck even narrower, as it isn’t open to outside talent. We tend to look only at few results, a sixth place here, a Q1 there, and cry miracle, but never remark that in some of the following races – it happened to both Leclerc and Gasly – they were all over the place and nobody noticed it. If those things happen when they are say on a Ferrari, the scrutiny is on every single move they make, the whole media – which these days with internet goes around 24/7 – and socials will discuss it to no end and pressure builds up. All of a sudden, it’s make or break for a young gun.
When the independents – the proverbial garagisti - still counted, the opportunity for seats was wider, as the competition was still open. One could see a Jones finding himself in the right place and make the most of it, after years of mediocrity, while arguably better drivers like Scheckter or Reutemann despite showing brilliance all along, struggled to get their shot at glory.
Lauda went to Ferrari after only two full seasons in F1, he wasn’t an also-ran (but was about to become one). And Ferrari at the end of 1973 wasn’t a top team, they almost folded that year. He found himself in the right place at the right time and grabbed the opportunity with both hands. As it is always the case, for those who make it.
While he hardly bet the house on Lauda, he didn’t need to, if it didn’t work out it would have been time for the next one in the queue, the fact that Enzo Ferrari gave him a seat and succeeded shows why he is “Enzo Ferrari”. Nobody else was available, mind: without the Old Man, Niki could have kissed goodbye to his F1 career, never mind the glory. The same applies for Villeneuve, whom one Teddy Mayer dropped in favour of Tambay, and whom without Ferrari would have been without a seat in 1978, with quite a different story ensuing, as I have already said elsewhere and you guys dismissed. Hindsight is convenient, especially when discussing forty years later, but only Enzo Ferrari had the foresight.
Today things have changed so much, that choices like those of Ferrari’s do not happen anymore. Money and interests at play are of such magnitude that the top teams, specifically their managers who have to respond to the shareholders, won’t entrust a seat to a young driver. The last one was Hamilton, a complete deb, thanks - hear hear! – to reviled Ron Dennis (a shareholder himself, crucially, he could afford the decision). They ‘d rather have a second driver who is a safe pair of hands, with established experience, although completely devoid of brilliance. People like Marchionne, in due course, probably would have seen through that and possibly made bolder driver choices - there has been indeed talk of Leclerc - as he did in entrusting Italian engineers with experience only in production cars.
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Aug 6, 2018 14:05:44 GMT
Here is an interesting one, or as the University essay questioner would put it "discuss", Would you have bet your house on Niki Lauda after 1971/2 or even 3? It's true; while he made a good appearance in '73, he had just one finish in the points, a fifth on Zolder in Belgium, earning him his two points for the entire season. But actually, his teammate Clay Regazzoni didn't do any better; he, too, scored 2 points for 1973. And he, too, was picked up by Ferrari for '74. Nürburgring 1973. Great photo Mikael, In 1973 the BRM P160 in E spec was still a good chassis and on many occasions the Firestone tyres were probably better than the Goodyears fitted to all of the "top" teams. Unfortunately as Niki has often spoken the fitment of old parts and running too many team cars ruined the cars reliability. I think some of Niki's drives in that car really surprised many, as did Regga who sometimes was really fired up. It is interesting to note that James Hunt really came to prominence that same year in the Hesketh March 731 also fitted with Firestones, he is also someone who many would not have chanced as a future WC even up until the end of 1975. However in some ways Grand Prix racing was much more healthy back in those times. Opportunities were there for both drivers and teams which disgracefully are not available today, much to the abject shame of all those concerned. JC
|
|
|
Post by René on Aug 6, 2018 15:46:58 GMT
The same applies for Villeneuve, whom one Teddy Mayer dropped in favour of Tambay, and whom without Ferrari would have been without a seat in 1978, with quite a different story ensuing, as I have already said elsewhere and you guys dismissed. Not sure if that is true Lucio. I think we're all very aware of the fact that Gilles could make his career because of Enzo's trust, gut feeling and patience. And even during the 1978 season, there were many within Ferrari who didn't believe Gilles could deliver. He had the speed but can he bring it home? His victory in Montreal was very needed and not a minute too early to convince the doubters. I mentioned this in the Canadian GP thread.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Aug 6, 2018 20:38:40 GMT
It's true; while he made a good appearance in '73, he had just one finish in the points, a fifth on Zolder in Belgium, earning him his two points for the entire season. But actually, his teammate Clay Regazzoni didn't do any better; he, too, scored 2 points for 1973. And he, too, was picked up by Ferrari for '74. Nürburgring 1973. Great photo Mikael, In 1973 the BRM P160 in E spec was still a good chassis and on many occasions the Firestone tyres were probably better than the Goodyears fitted to all of the "top" teams. Unfortunately as Niki has often spoken the fitment of old parts and running too many team cars ruined the cars reliability. I think some of Niki's drives in that car really surprised many, as did Regga who sometimes was really fired up. It is interesting to note that James Hunt really came to prominence that same year in the Hesketh March 731 also fitted with Firestones, he is also someone who many would not have chanced as a future WC even up until the end of 1975. However in some ways Grand Prix racing was much more healthy back in those times. Opportunities were there for both drivers and teams which disgracefully are not available today, much to the abject shame of all those concerned. JC Mikael and John Charles, A great photograph and interesting exchange, points well conveyed.
I was at the Canadian Grand Prix that year and remember Niki Lauda's drive. He was leading early in the race partly because of natural talent [not yet acknowledged] and partly because his Firestone wets were better than Goodyear's. Most people thought this was entirely due to his tyres. The following year they knew better.
-Carl
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2018 23:36:08 GMT
The same applies for Villeneuve, whom one Teddy Mayer dropped in favour of Tambay, and whom without Ferrari would have been without a seat in 1978, with quite a different story ensuing, as I have already said elsewhere and you guys dismissed. Not sure if that is true Lucio. I think we're all very aware of the fact that Gilles could make his career because of Enzo's trust, gut feeling and patience. And even during the 1978 season, there were many within Ferrari who didn't believe Gilles could deliver. He had the speed but can he bring it home? His victory in Montreal was very needed and not a minute too early to convince the doubters. I mentioned this in the Canadian GP thread. Both Lauda and Villeneuve owe their careers to Ferrari. Without Ferrari giving them the drive there wouldn’t have been Niki multiple world champion and Villeneuve’s legend. That is plain to see. Please go back to read all Niki’s interviews and books: no Ferrari, no Forghieri, no Fiorano endless laps – no Niki Lauda. Niki would have struggled to find another drive with the Brits and make a success of it. Likewise, Villeneuve. He didn’t have a queue of suitors, that is a fact. He may have had a backmarker car, eventually, but who was waiting for more than one year, without the luxury of testing ad libitum on a private track? All the while destroying cars? Who? Colin Chapman? (say) Please, don’t make me laugh. And he wasn’t that quick from the word go! He wasn’t Senna or Hamilton. Reutemann was all over him. Lauda was quicker, from the start. Lauda slowed down seriously only after his accident. The fallacy in your argument, if I may, is “hindsight”. He’s gone into the history books as “Gilles Villeneuve” hence he would have made it anyway. I say instead, put yourself at the end of 1977, if Lauda didn’t leave Ferrari, who was going to take Villeneuve and give him all the time Enzo Ferrari afforded him. Mayer discarded him. Chapman had a winning car and top drivers, no time to waste there. No “Villeneuve fever” on the British mags. It would have been a completely different story and most likely a very close-run thing to make it an extended career in F1 at all, I say. A case of agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by chrisb on Aug 7, 2018 5:01:33 GMT
Mikael what a beautiful photograph, thank you,
|
|
|
Post by René on Aug 7, 2018 10:00:47 GMT
Not sure if that is true Lucio. I think we're all very aware of the fact that Gilles could make his career because of Enzo's trust, gut feeling and patience. And even during the 1978 season, there were many within Ferrari who didn't believe Gilles could deliver. He had the speed but can he bring it home? His victory in Montreal was very needed and not a minute too early to convince the doubters. I mentioned this in the Canadian GP thread. Both Lauda and Villeneuve owe their careers to Ferrari. Without Ferrari giving them the drive there wouldn’t have been Niki multiple world champion and Villeneuve’s legend. That is plain to see. Please go back to read all Niki’s interviews and books: no Ferrari, no Forghieri, no Fiorano endless laps – no Niki Lauda. Niki would have struggled to find another drive with the Brits and make a success of it. Likewise, Villeneuve. He didn’t have a queue of suitors, that is a fact. He may have had a backmarker car, eventually, but who was waiting for more than one year, without the luxury of testing ad libitum on a private track? All the while destroying cars? Who? Colin Chapman? (say) Please, don’t make me laugh. And he wasn’t that quick from the word go! He wasn’t Senna or Hamilton. Reutemann was all over him. Lauda was quicker, from the start. Lauda slowed down seriously only after his accident. The fallacy in your argument, if I may, is “hindsight”. He’s gone into the history books as “Gilles Villeneuve” hence he would have made it anyway. I say instead, put yourself at the end of 1977, if Lauda didn’t leave Ferrari, who was going to take Villeneuve and give him all the time Enzo Ferrari afforded him. Mayer discarded him. Chapman had a winning car and top drivers, no time to waste there. No “Villeneuve fever” on the British mags. It would have been a completely different story and most likely a very close-run thing to make it an extended career in F1 at all, I say. A case of agree to disagree. Lucio, I actually agree with everything you say. I don't know where I argued with this but if I did I obviously didn't make myself clear. Gilles was my childhood hero but I was too young to actually analyze his career then. I just thought he was "awesome". But I've read enough about him later to be fully aware of the fact that his (F1) career could have ended so easily after Silverstone or at best ended in a backmarker team. All athletes, no matter how talented, need a brake at some point in their early career. A moment when someone gives you a chance to show what you can do in the big league. Niki got his when Maranello called in 1973 and he grabbed it with both hands. He made perfect use of the situation, a Ferrari team that was 'resetting' itself which obviously created the space and possibilities for Niki to establish himself and have influence on the direction the team was going. Niki not only used his racecraft and technical ability but also his very clever way of thinking to reshape the team. Gilles was another matter. He was never a team leader like Niki, he was just a fearless boy from Canada who knew how to drive really fast. But he was also very wild, destroying a lot of Ferraris and making a lot of mistakes! Why Enzo kept believing in him, even calling him 'my little prince of destruction' with affection remains a mystery in a way. But Enzo did and Gilles eventually came good. 1979, only Gilles's second full F1 season, was very mature (most of the time ) and he could have won the championship if some early races like Zolder or Monaco had gone more favourable for him. It was all very close. But yes, both Niki and Gilles made their career with Ferrari and because Enzo believed in them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 10:13:29 GMT
Top man, Rene'.
As they say in Sicily, bacio le mani!
More later, if I get the inspiration (too many things to do and think about).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 14:36:00 GMT
Everybody operates within the categories they know best, and Ferrari was no exception. He had seen it all and could draw parallels between his current drivers and those in the past. In Lauda he saw Varzi, the same coldness and cynicism. He said Villeneuve reminded him of Guy Moll and some episodes where obviously reminiscent of Nuvolari. He appreciated calculators but was enthralled by the chargers.
Chapman operated in a similar manner, but perhaps with opposite values. His most successful experience had been with a quick and smooth driver like Jim Clark. He then looked for that chemistry when he thought he’d found the man who, even from afar, could compare to the original: Fittipaldi, Andretti. Somehow, I sense he almost struggled to get inspired by the likes of Rindt or Ronnie, almost as if they were challenges to his inner vision rather than facilitators. Just a thought that crossed my mind.
|
|
|
Post by robmarsh on Aug 7, 2018 14:44:34 GMT
Lucio and René, I think the misunderstanding arose because some of us understood Lucio to say that GVs career could have been over at the end of 1978 when in fact i think he meant 1977. I agree that at the end of 1977 GV was not a good prospect and but for the faith of Enzo his career may have been over. Towards the end of 1978 there were rumours that GV may not have a seat at Ferrari in 1979 due to Scheckter's arrival and that Reuteman was still on the books. By that stage however, I believe that GV had done enough to remain in F1 even if not with Ferrari.
A simple case of misunderstanding.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2018 14:48:36 GMT
Spot on, Rob.
|
|
|
Post by charleselan on Aug 7, 2018 15:18:16 GMT
I have read all the above with some interest, and always good to see other takes on matters.
With respect of Gilles I think the first thing we have to bear in mind is the fact that he was not a wet behind the ear youngster when he made his debut in a F1 car in 1977; i believe he actually "lied" about his age at first, he was 27 years of age which is not the norm. He knew this and had to make a big impression from the outset, even if he had the patronage of such as James Hunt. He therefore drove like the devil and there can be little doubt he pushed it too far at times, Japan '77 being a case in point.
The talent was obvious however from the outset and drivers with that kind of ability and bloody mindedness will come good. His very first drive in the "old" McLaren M23 at Silverstone was exceptional and did not go unnoticed, even though Teddy Mayer seemed somewhat blinkered.
I do believe he would have come good even without Ferrari for if he had been put in a less than good car he would have out performed that vehicle without exception, and that is what gets, or got, drivers the top seats.
Lucio's comments about Colin Chapman and his drivers is an interesting one again but his parallel of Jochen Rindt and Ronnie Peterson don't gel with me. Firstly, Jochen and Colin were a marriage of necessity in that after Jim was killed Chapman wanted the fastest driver in his team. He wasn't going to get JYS so Jochen was the man, but they had a fractious relationship at best. Jochen was not going to take some of the things Colin threw at him and Colin did not like someone standing up to him ever.
Ronnie on the other hand was very different; Colin wanted Ronnie in his team from the moment he saw him driving the under funded and resourced March at Monaco in 1970. I think Colin almost treated it as a quest to get Ronnie, but the March contract drawn up by one of the poison duo was unbreakable. Once Ronnie was at Team Lotus, Colin had a driver he could plug in the car and he would drive the wheels off the thing, and Chapman absolutely loved that. Quote from the brilliant film "If you aren't winning you aren't trying", Colin Chapman to Peter Warr "don't bother changing Ronnie's wing he will just drive his heart out no matter what we give him".
Ronnie like Jim Clark had an incredible ability to drive around a cars problems and both could frustrate the blazes out of Chapman and the mechanics, but the difference between the two drivers was the fact that Colin could disseminate from Jim what he needed to get the best out of his car. I think it was Colin's own failure with Ronnie, maybe he did not try hard enough to understand Ronnie's Swenglish. There was also the matter of funding at Lotus when Ronnie was there also, the team did not have the money some thought they had and that kept them behind Ferrari and McLaren from 1974 onwards.
|
|
|
Post by Carl on Aug 7, 2018 16:08:24 GMT
Everybody operates within the categories they know best, and Ferrari was no exception. He had seen it all and could draw parallels between his current drivers and those in the past. In Lauda he saw Varzi, the same coldness and cynicism. He said Villeneuve reminded him of Guy Moll and some episodes where obviously reminiscent of Nuvolari. He appreciated calculators but was enthralled by the chargers.
Chapman operated in a similar manner, but perhaps with opposite values. His most successful experience had been with a quick and smooth driver like Jim Clark. He then looked for that chemistry when he thought he’d found the man who, even from afar, could compare to the original: Fittipaldi, Andretti. Somehow, I sense he almost struggled to get inspired by the likes of Rindt or Ronnie, almost as if they were challenges to his inner vision rather than facilitators. Just a thought that crossed my mind. Wonderful analysis!
|
|