[Hammaduersnes]

However Senna said he was quite fast and really did get a bad deal from mclaren

Really? Where did he say this, can you post a link to the interview, I have tried but can not find on the net.

[Heopretg2006]

Michael was a better driver than he seemed to be in F1...

I think that's certainly true. Monza was probably a true reflection of his ability. IIRC he dropped to the back of the field very early on in the race so to make it to the podium was pretty impressive.

Of course his wish to remain based in the US didn't help, but other things conspired against him from the start. For one thing he was alongside Senna in a McLaren team that had lost Honda engines and was making do with second string Fords for the interim. Also, given that his knowledge of the circuits was zero in the first place (no simulators in 1993!!) the limit on laps during race weekends hampered him badly.

I suspect that Mansell's departure for America had much to do with Andretti's arrival in F1. He was one of leading drivers in the CART/PPG IndyCar World Series having won the title for Newman/Haas in 1991. Bernie, couldn't have been happy losing 'his' WDC to Indycar so is more than likely to have 'greased the wheels' to get Indycar's 'star' into F1, and while McLaren signed him I think they may have done so somewhat reluctantly, particularly as they had Hakkinen, who had shown well for Lotus in 1992, waiting in the wings.

I certainly think there were a lot of people hoping to see Andretti fail, and unfortunately circumstances, and Andretti himself, gave them what they wanted.

[irridgita]

Jo Ramirez in his Memoirs Of A Racing Man is very critical of Michael's commitment to F1. He is unduly harsh in my opinion, but he does point out that Michael lacked the total obsession of Senna and others to put F1 ahead of family, lifestyle, everything. This probably makes Michael a more rounded individual, but not a sucessful Grand prix driver. Mario was also sonewhat ambivalent about F1 in most seasons. The difference was that his awesome driving and car setup skills were enough to overcome any lack of testing or practice time. He did put the car on pole in his debut Grand Prix. Anyway testing in the 1970s was not as intence as it became by 1993 and the cars were not as complex. One thing that dosen't compute is the notion that McLaren would pay millions to sign Michael and not want him to suceed. they were in a race with Ferrari in 1993 for the title of most sucessful team ever in terms of wins. Senna's 5 victories gave them the record, 105 wins.

[Ettiominiw]

Michael had two issues: he lived in the USA and the McLaren had so many more electronic stuff on it than the IndyCar he was used to. It was just a harder transition to make than you'd expect going from an open wheel series to another open wheel series.

Michael was a better driver than he seemed to be in F1, but it was not sabotage. The more points Andretti scored, the more money Ron Dennis made. There was no reason for sabotage. If they wanted Hakkinen, and they wanted him cheaper, they would've never hired Michael in the first place...

I don't agree on the part of 'more electronic stuff' making it harder to make the transition. On the contrary, they make the car much easier to drive. However, it appears that Andretti was lacking in many aspects of F1 driving (for example he wasn't adept to wet-racing) but did show signs of aggressiveness early on. Most IndyCar drivers find the technical side of F1 harder to adapt to, but Michael Andretti did show some initiative & fight. He was much indeed better than he results showed.

[MP+4]

I don't agree on the part of 'more electronic stuff' making it harder to make the transition.

It's not so much that it made the car hard to control or anything; even if it made the car "easier" to drive in theory, it made it harder to make the transition because the two cars were vastly different. You have to re-adjust your driving style to a car that is "easier" to drive than one that doesn't handle as well.

Also, I read somewhere, probably on F1 Rejects, that in Brazil, he didn't realize that the shift from 1 to 2 was not automatic as it was in CART, and completely butchered the start by the time he realized he had to shift manually.

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

Tallgeese

When one considers the facts it's that 'Americans simply can't race because their series are not competitive enough' & ex-F1 drivers in IRL or ChampCar tend to do much better (Fittipaldi, Mansell, or even Dornbos) whereas Sebastian Bourdais was originally an F1 candidate who ended up in ChampCar, but proved the superiority of the F1-learning curve. Let's try to put some facts and logic into our arguments before making blanket statements. As you can see, many other people in this thread have used historical race data to back up their points. It is also received much better.

I do believe (historically) that American Phil Hill won the Formula 1 title back in 1961. Which of course, some would say, was because of Ferrari's superior car and the death of Trips after his incident with Clark.

He was then followed by American Mario Andretti who won the F1 title back in 1978 while driving for Lotus. Andretti got the shaft when he first came into F1 (which is expected I guess, guys should have to earn their rides) and he did.

Now of course, Michael just can't do it, no mention that he obviously didn't have as good of equipment that his teammate did. I think we all know how that goes.

Hamilton has better equipment than Kovalainen right now. Maasa and Räikkönen might actually have very close equipment I can't tell whose is better.

We all know that the cars make the driver in Formula 1, anyone who denies that doesn't follow the sport. The cars make the driver, but it takes a great driver to do something special with that great car. I.E. Schumacher, Prost, Senna, Piquet, Lauda, Fittipaldi, Stewart...etc.etc.

All I am saying is, I would just appreciate a sound argument and not one off the hip without any intellectual thought towards the subject being commented.

And by the way. Marco shouldn't be in Formula 1, he hasn't done anything in IRL yet.

-Nic

P.S. Hugs and Kisses.
P.S.S. You can't compare NASCAR and F1. It is like eating an apple, then eating an orange, and trying to decide which kiwi tastes better. They are too different to make comparisons about which one is more difficult. They are each to their own.

[Hammaduersnes]

Hamilton has better equipment than Kovalainen right now.

Please share your knowledge tell a bit more what is the difference in their equipment.

[QWNPdpr5]

Please share your knowledge tell a bit more what is the difference in their equipment.

Lewis's car has Lewis Hamilton on the cockpit, Heikki's says Heikki Kavalainen on the side.

That comment from Morse (does he drive a classic Jag?) struck me as weird too. Perhaps he knows sommat, eh?

[JediReturns84]

Let's try to put some facts and logic into our arguments before making blanket statements.

Hamilton has better equipment than Kovalainen right now. Maasa and Räikkönen might actually have very close equipment I can't tell whose is better.

All I am saying is, I would just appreciate a sound argument and not one off the hip without any intellectual thought towards the subject being commented.

I apologise sincerely for selectivly quoting your post but I felt it necessary.

What facts have you that LH has better equipment than HK?

What Logic is there for a F1 team to disadvantage one of their drivers with inferior equipment, thus handicapping their chances of success?

Like you, I appreciate sound arguements and would welcome a reasoned response.

Regards

[mr.supervideogoodfd]

I apologise sincerely for selectivly quoting your post but I felt it necessary.

What facts have you that LH has better equipment than HK?

What Logic is there for a F1 team to disadvantage one of their drivers with inferior equipment, thus handicapping their chances of success?

Like you, I appreciate sound arguements and would welcome a reasoned response.

Regards

Hamilton is in the first seat. That is always the better car. Switch them around, I think you would see HK being a tenth or two faster than LH on a regular basis.

I don't think that the teams disadvantage one of their drivers. I think they just give the driver in the first seat more time, money, opportunity to succeed than the second driver. Who's job is to be there, help the team succeed and not always get the perfect settings that driver 1 gets. Driver 2 still gets good stuff, especially at the top tier teams, but driver 2 is always considered the lesser and treated as such.

-Nic

[QWNPdpr5]

Hamilton is in the first seat. That is always the better car. Switch them around, I think you would see HK being a tenth or two faster than LH on a regular basis.

I don't think that the teams disadvantage one of their drivers. I think they just give the driver in the first seat more time, money, opportunity to succeed than the second driver. Who's job is to be there, help the team succeed and not always get the perfect settings that driver 1 gets. Driver 2 still gets good stuff, especially at the top tier teams, but driver 2 is always considered the lesser and treated as such.

-Nic

Applying your logic then, who is in the 'first seat' at Ferrari then, and explain in no more than 100 words the variations between the Reds drivers.

[MaigicyuNinia]

Hamilton is in the first seat. That is always the better car. Switch them around, I think you would see HK being a tenth or two faster than LH on a regular basis.

I don't think that the teams disadvantage one of their drivers. I think they just give the driver in the first seat more time, money, opportunity to succeed than the second driver. Who's job is to be there, help the team succeed and not always get the perfect settings that driver 1 gets. Driver 2 still gets good stuff, especially at the top tier teams, but driver 2 is always considered the lesser and treated as such.

-Nic

Not necessarily--BUT each driver has slight variations in style, and a certain design of a car to perform in a certain manner, might well suit the driving style of one driver over the other and be easier to set up the car for each particular track, for that particular driver---just making him look faster.

While JV came back to F1, he convinced the team to map the engines slightly different, which resulted in a substantial improvement in his lap times compared to his team mate.

One would not think that something like engine mapping would give one driver an advantage over another.......but......

So it would seem if you want Lewis to be WDC (and MacCheat has as much said so), then whatever helps him will be done, even if it does not suit HK

[engacenus]

Also, given that his knowledge of the circuits was zero in the first place (no simulators in 1993!!) the limit on laps during race weekends hampered him badly.

They had simulators in 1993. Just not very good ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_%28Domark%29

[QWNPdpr5]

They had simulators in 1993. Just not very good ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F1_%28Domark%29

I think the simulators the teams use are a little more involved than a game made for the home computer/console market....

[MaigicyuNinia]

Jo Ramirez in his Memoirs Of A Racing Man is very critical of Michael's commitment to F1. He is unduly harsh in my opinion, but he does point out that Michael lacked the total obsession of Senna and others to put F1 ahead of family, lifestyle, everything. This probably makes Michael a more rounded individual, but not a sucessful Grand prix driver. Mario was also sonewhat ambivalent about F1 in most seasons. The difference was that his awesome driving and car setup skills were enough to overcome any lack of testing or practice time. He did put the car on pole in his debut Grand Prix. Anyway testing in the 1970s was not as intence as it became by 1993 and the cars were not as complex. One thing that dosen't compute is the notion that McLaren would pay millions to sign Michael and not want him to suceed. they were in a race with Ferrari in 1993 for the title of most sucessful team ever in terms of wins. Senna's 5 victories gave them the record, 105 wins.

Yeah, started as the pole sitter in his first gp and probably would have won, except he damaged his front wing or the car

Well Mario said that with all the wings and stuff, the cars were becoming more and more like go karts and such, and I am not sure that except perhaps in the rain, the kind of "touch" that made Clark, mario and such so very great, has just faded out of need.....as mario said :"the cars were getting absurd, really crude, with no suspension movement whatever. It was toggle switch driving with no need for any kind of delicacy...it made leaving Formula One a lot easier than it would have been."

[BodeOmissemia]

Jo Ramirez in his Memoirs Of A Racing Man is very critical of Michael's commitment to F1. He is unduly harsh in my opinion, but he does point out that Michael lacked the total obsession of Senna and others to put F1 ahead of family, lifestyle, everything. This probably makes Michael a more rounded individual, but not a sucessful Grand prix driver.

Michael wasn't all that "rounded" (though he did go through a period where he was a little round ). Though I was never blessed to meet him, Ayrton seemed to care about people, at least on a macro scale. Michael is very good with money, but he seems to be as far from being a "people person" or humanitarian as one can get.

Marco is the product of two of the absolutely most unpleasant people I have encounterd in 30 years or so of attending races. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Ron's prime motivation in getting rid of Michael was so that he wouldn't ever have to see Sandy's flakey mug again. What does it say when team personnel are given the task of taking a wife shopping or sight seeing, so she'll stop getting in the way and causing problems in the paddock? And then there was Michael... flying in for sessions. Did he even know the mechanics by name? I don't know. But I do know that it's easier to get people to do the best job for you when they feel some connection to you, or admiration for you.

While I admire Marco for being the good son, in taking up for his dad, it was Michael's lack of dedication, and doing what it took to be successful in F1, that is to blame. As for Marco, I've seen no sign that he's a blinding talent. So I don't think he needs to worry about F1, unless Honda wants to strap him and Danica into one of their slugs for some demo/PR laps.

[Cwvnyfsj]

By raw speed Michael Andretti wasn't totally hopeless in F1. If I remember correctly, then in terms of laptimes he managed to be fairly close to Senna in several qualifyings. But his problem was that in his debut season he had a team-mate, who was simply "too fast", which resulted in awful amount of driver errors as Andretti desperately tried to match him. Donington 1993 is one of the best examples of this. Senna had just passed Wendlinger for P3. Moments later Andretti tried to do the same and took both Wendlinger and himself off onto the gravel trap...

[MaigicyuNinia]

By raw speed Michael Andretti wasn't totally hopeless in F1. If I remember correctly, then in terms of laptimes he managed to be fairly close to Senna in several qualifyings. But his problem was that in his debut season he had a team-mate, who was simply "too fast", which resulted in awful amount of driver errors as Andretti desperately tried to match him. Donington 1993 is one of the best examples of this. Senna had just passed Wendlinger for P3. Moments later Andretti tried to do the same and took both Wendlinger and himself off onto the gravel trap...

For that matter Mr. G. Berger as Senna's team mate had much the same fate when compared to Senna. I remember some story about there was the time that Senna took off for a couple of months while Berger worked extra hard to develope the car and so forth. Senna returns and is immediately much faster than berger right out of the box....

[JediReturns84]

Hamilton is in the first seat. That is always the better car. Switch them around, I think you would see HK being a tenth or two faster than LH on a regular basis.

I don't think that the teams disadvantage one of their drivers. I think they just give the driver in the first seat more time, money, opportunity to succeed than the second driver. Who's job is to be there, help the team succeed and not always get the perfect settings that driver 1 gets. Driver 2 still gets good stuff, especially at the top tier teams, but driver 2 is always considered the lesser and treated as such.

-Nic

Well, that really is an incredible claim!!

When the difference between 2 drivers is measured in 1,000's of an second, you think 2 thenths can be gained by just switching cars

Sorry Nic but this makes no sense whatsoever.

If we go on heresay, rumour and opinion, FA claimed he brought 6/10's of a second to McLaren and then being in the number 1 car (after all, you wouldn't put a rookie in the no_1 over a WDC no matter what you thought of him) gave him another 2/10's?

What you are trying to say is that lisetening to you and Fernando, Lewis was over 8/10's of a second a lap quicker than Fernando. Now this year, in your world, Lewis has the No_1 car and as he and HK are similar on raw pace, then HK has a 2/10 advantage over his team make meaning he is a second a lap faster than Fernando.

It is true that in development, cars can be adjusted to different drivers styles. We know MS liked running way more electronic aids and the car was built around that.

Claiming that there is 2/10's of a sec between the 2 McLaren cars is laughable.