Quote from 5haz :

He didn't have it so easy in 94, and in 95 he was one of the few that could hold a candle to Schumacher.

Just because someone doesn't win the championship doesn't mean they're not good, your posts in various threads are begining to make me think you really don't have a clue.

Williams in the 90s up till 97 had the best of everything, they had the best car, best engines, best equipment, best engineers and the most money.

Even look at the results there were a few relaibility issues but everytime he finnished he would get a podium at least(he got one 4th as hes worst finishing postion).

96 proves my claim when Shumacher moved to ferrari(who were even slower then benetton) and williams Completely dominate the entire season.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You are right. There are people quoting "If you think I am good, you should see my nephew" as if Ayrton actually said that. He's more overrated than Hamilton. We all KNEW Hamilton was good in karts, we just weren't 100% sure if he was gonna be good on the big time.

Ayrton did say it.

However, Bruno was his nephew, so there is a natural bias. And just because a kid is good in karts, it doesn't mean he will be good in other types of vehicles. People who guessed on Hamilton got lucky. There are HEAPS of kids who fly in karts, but get nowhere.

Quote from Intrepid :

According to Glock following is just as hard as before, if not worse contrary to what Heidfeld claimed a few days ago

this may have something to do with the fact that one of the requirements for saubers wind tunnel was to be able to run 2 half size cars behind each other to measure the effects of wake on each other. logically BMW should have been able to use this to optimise their ability to stick close behind with the adjustable wing

OK, to end this thread right now, Damon Hill and Hamilton are naturally good racers. Hill didn't race in his fathers wake, he made his own path, and he was a bloody good driver. Barichello is also a bloody good driver, regardless of past few years results. He finished 2nd in a Stewart for christ sake. He is good.

Quote from Mustafur :

Williams in the 90s up till 97 had the best of everything, they had the best car, best engines, best equipment, best engineers and the most money.

Even look at the results there were a few relaibility issues but everytime he finnished he would get a podium at least(he got one 4th as hes worst finishing postion).

96 proves my claim when Shumacher moved to ferrari(who were even slower then benetton) and williams Completely dominate the entire season.

You could put me in the same car in the same races and I wouldnt be anywhere near as good, even with the best car you need someone who can drive well to be successful, perhaps Damon's lowest position was 4th because he was good.

You just confirm you have no clue.

Quote from 5haz :

You could put me in the same car in the same races and I wouldnt be anywhere near as good, even with the best car you need someone who can drive well to be successful, perhaps Damon's lowest position was 4th because he was good.

You just confirm you have no clue.

He thinks Ferrari were good in the early 90's of course he has no clue. lol! :P

Quote from BlueFlame :

He thinks Ferrari were good in the early 90's of course he has no clue. lol! :P

Well they were good in 1990, with one of my favourite F1 cars, and then John Barnard left and it all went to crap.

There seems to be this attitude now that anyone who does well is overrated, sometimes things are successful and popular because they're good, LFS for example.

Quote from 5haz :

You could put me in the same car in the same races and I wouldnt be anywhere near as good, even with the best car you need someone who can drive well to be successful, perhaps Damon's lowest position was 4th because he was good.

You just confirm you have no clue.

What are you talking about, im comparing him as an f1 driver not some average person.

As a racing driver he has shit load of talent(you need to be just sniff a drive in f1) but as a F1 driver he barely had that much talent.

The car was the Main reason why he was good in those years imo.

Quote from Mustafur :

What are you talking about, im comparing him as an f1 driver not some average person.

As a racing driver he has shit load of talent(you need to be just sniff a drive in f1) but as a F1 driver he barely had that much talent.

The car was the Main reason why he was good in those years imo.

Still, you could put Ricardo Rosset in a Williams in '96 and he probrably wouldn't become champion, and he got into F1.

Even on the F1 grid, talent isn't distributed out evenly amongst the drivers.

Quote from 5haz :

Still, you could put Ricardo Rosset in a Williams in '96 and he probrably wouldn't become champion, and he got into F1.

Well Villeneuve Would of won, hes team mate who not only was a rookie, but was proven that once put in a mid field car he was rubbish.

Quote from Mustafur :

Well Villeneuve Would of won, hes team mate who not only was a rookie, but was proven that once put in a mid field car he was rubbish.

And Hill managed to lead the majority of the 1997 Hungarian GP, leading none other than Schumacher, in an Arrows, until mechanical trouble dropped him back, he also beat Schumacher more than once in what was considered to be an infierior car in 1994.

Are you now going to tell me that Arrows had the best car on the grid in 1997?

Quote from 5haz :

And Hill managed to lead the majority of the 1997 Hungarian GP, leading none other than Schumacher, in an Arrows, until mechanical trouble dropped him back, he also beat Schumacher more than once in what was considered to be an infierior car in 1994.

Are you now going to tell me that Arrows had the best car on the grid in 1997?

one off race really, you going to tell me sato is world champion material because he passed alonso in canada in a much inferior car in 07?

Quote from BlueFlame :

He thinks Ferrari were good in the early 90's of course he has no clue. lol! :P

Never said good i said high end mid field and im right look.

1990: 2nd
1991: 3rd
1992: 4th
1993: 4th
1994: 3rd
1995: 3rd

Just becuase they weren't fighting for the title doesn't mean they were at the back of the pack.

Quote from Mustafur :

one off race really, you going to tell me sato is world champion material because he passed alonso in canada in a much inferior car in 07?

Hill was 1996 champion, almost 1994 champion and beat Schumacher in a supierior Bennetton in 1995, thats hardly a one off performance.

Quote from 5haz :

Hill was 1996 champion, almost 1994 champion and beat Schumacher in a supierior Bennetton in 1995, thats hardly a one off performance.

The only reason why he challenged in 94 was due to the fact Shumacher was disqualified for 2 races and excluded from another 2, otherwise there would of been no challange at all. 95 I could agree, somewhat.

Quote from Mustafur :

The only reason why he challenged in 94 was due to the fact Shumacher was disqualified for 2 races and excluded from another 2, otherwise there would of been no challange at all. 95 I could agree, somewhat.

The championship was always going to go Schumacher's was in 1994, but Hill still beat him fairly at least once in Japan.

Mustafur, if you are going to try to say that Damon Hill is talentless do it elsewhere because he was, and still IS, immense. The guy won in Spa1998 when everyone else crashed in the rain, I don't care if it was a race of attrition, you still gotta be good to keep it on the road in those conditions.
He came 2nd at Hungaroring in 1997 but had a problem with the car and was overtaken by Jacques Villeneuve on the last lap. He would of beat Schumacher on many more occasions and the 1994 championship, had Schumacher not seen the red mist and rammed him at Adelaide like the pr*ck he is.

He was good in Williams, he was good in Arrows, and he was good in Jordan. In fact, Diniz was Damon's team-mate in 1997 and had absolutely NOTHING on Damon, Damon was qualifying in the top 8 for most of the season iirc and if the Arrows didn't **** up almost every race he drove in, I'm reckoning he would of been nosing around 3rd position in the championship too..

the latest source said that Barrichello will be driving for the team FREE. the team will only be paying for his expenses and points bonuses.

Quote from 5haz :

And Hill managed to lead the majority of the 1997 Hungarian GP, leading none other than Schumacher, in an Arrows, until mechanical trouble dropped him back, he also beat Schumacher more than once in what was considered to be an infierior car in 1994.

When did anyone ever say the 94 Williams was an inferior car to the Benetton? You only had to look at the second half of the season after the rule changes to realise this wasn't the case...

Quote from BlueFlame :

Mustafur, if you are going to try to say that Damon Hill is talentless do it elsewhere because he was, and still IS, immense. The guy won in Spa1998 when everyone else crashed in the rain, I don't care if it was a race of attrition, you still gotta be good to keep it on the road in those conditions.
He came 2nd at Hungaroring in 1997 but had a problem with the car and was overtaken by Jacques Villeneuve on the last lap. He would of beat Schumacher on many more occasions and the 1994 championship, had Schumacher not seen the red mist and rammed him at Adelaide like the pr*ck he is.

He was good in Williams, he was good in Arrows, and he was good in Jordan. In fact, Diniz was Damon's team-mate in 1997 and had absolutely NOTHING on Damon, Damon was qualifying in the top 8 for most of the season iirc and if the Arrows didn't **** up almost every race he drove in, I'm reckoning he would of been nosing around 3rd position in the championship too..

What Damon lacked in raw natural ability I think he made up via good rapor and communication with engineers. Frank Williams talking to Prost in 93 said something along the lines of

"The engineers want Hill, he knows the car. Mika is fast, but Damon knows the car"

See Damon drive now and you wouldn't be too impressed. He is one of the greatest mysteries in motorsport, but people who right him off (something I may have been victim too in the past) need to realise that he achieved a considerable amount considering his background in 4 wheel motorsport.

I always thought Hill drove more with his head, rather than his heart. While he didn't have the natural affinity behind the wheel that Senna or Schumacher had, he made up for it with being able to analyse. I think Martin Brundle falls into the same category. Not great drivers, but a huge understanding of the car and the engineering behind it. A lot of drivers run on pure natural talent without a head for the mechanicals, and both have their plus and minus points. The truly great combine the two.

That more or less came with hes age and experience, all though hes F1 experience was rather low.

Even after he won the title in 96 no one wanted him, becuase they knew he lacked raw talent.

He can win smart though, and its proven with hes victory In Spa 98.

oh and we are going WAY off topic here.

back on topic: lmao barrichello will probably need a side job lmao.

fair play to barrichello, he's obviously racing because he enjoys it and not just for the money. always nice to see people who don't throw a wobbler and disappear the moment they can't earn mega money

Let's not turn this into another speculation thread and stick to the facts, shall we?

Teams don't keep people around in F1 if they are shit. That's why there is such a good turnover in drivers, and that's why some drivers stay in the sport for many many years. Just look at how many drivers have come and gone in the last ten years...

Of course, it's only common sense that a driver is only as good as his car. He can't race outside of the cars ability - it's called physics.

Also, to say that a driver - that has been in the sport for 15 years - isn't any good, is nonsensical and idiotic.

Rubens Barrichello might not have championship winning drivers, but he has SOMETHING that keeps him around, and none of us can say with a degree of accuracy what that is.