>You're not clear on what you mean by 'two drivers,
>two teams', but.
I suppose, what I'm really trying to determine is what (non championship
contending) drivers have won races due to speed and not just due to
consistency/lack of mistakes.
The reason I want to know is because I'm so annoyed by some of the
unreasonable arguments I've read here. "Schumacher is the best driver"
(I agree) "win or lose" (I can't agree). "If someone beats Schumacher,
they must have a much better car" or "If Schumacher beats Hakinnen,
it could only be because the Ferrari is now better than the McLaren",
or any non McLaren/Ferrari win must be simply due to luck.
I was hoping to find examples of where drivers from non championship
contending teams drove storming races and won without the leaders
having to spin out ahead of them. Still, even after Frentzen's win, I
heard "Hakinnen could easily have passed Frentzen, but he didn't need
Still, it's nice to see many reports/websites giving Frentzen the
recognition he deserves after the race.
>(i) In Spa, 1998 (Hill's Jordan win), Coulthard was
>still running in a McLaren. Hence even if the two
>top drivers were out, there was a car from the
>top two teams that completed the race.
Yes, but he'd been in a bad crash, and had been out of his car for some
minutes in the pitlane. A very extreme case (but you are correct).
>(ii) In Australia, 1999 (Irvine's win) both Ferraris
>were still running. Shurely this is obvious since it
>was Irvine that won. Hence both top team and top
>driver cars were still running.
Yes, but since Irvine is also in a chamionship contending car, that's why
I 'excluded' him.
>(iii) From memory, when Berger won in 1997, MS was
>still running, in about 4th place, and gave GF a
>lift back to the pits where GF looked rather 'strained'
>hanging onto the airbox of the Ferrari for dear life.
I wasn't sure about this, thanks for the info. I do remember that
'lift' Giancarlo got. I've never seen anyone's eyes open up that
wide before! The devil in me couldn't help but wonder what
would happen if Schuey had accelerated to 150-ish and
slammed on the brakes. No, actually I know the answer to
>Hence, both top drivers and top cars.
Sorry, who do you mean by 'both'? Certainly, Berger beat Schuey
in a straight fight, and Schuey, in a Ferrari is certainly a championship
contender, so that fulfulls my criteria, seeing as the Benetton that year
was hardly a championship contender.
>What's more important is looking at whether the
>race was won because top cars dropped out in front
>of the driver who won, or whether the top cars
>dropped out after they were already beaten. It also
>depends on why they dropped out. In Spa, MS was
>driving far too quick for the conditions, and paid
>the price for his mistake. Damon drove at what
>turned out to be the fastest speed that still
>allowed him to finish the race. The McLaren of
>Hakkinen dropped out from behind Damon, not from
Of course, I'm not suggesting that Damon's win doesn't have *any*
merit, it's just that when any driver wins with others dropping out,
so many people here attribute the win to luck.
Even after Damon's win, some suggested he was lucky that Mika
had spun out, even if he was behind Damon and not a noted wet
>With Irvine's victory, the McLarens dropped out from
>in front of him. However, I don't think this means
>that Irvine's victory was pure luck. Reliability and
>speed are not independent variables. If a team makes
>its car very fast, but does so by sacrificing
>reliability (e.g. on standard engines, by increasing
>the compression ratio for the engine, don't know how
>this would apply for f1 engines), and both their
>cars drop out while in the lead, then I don't see
>that being just plain luck. Ferrari produced a car
>which was quick enough to win the race while being
>reliable enough to finish, and Irvine drove it fast
>enough to win.
I was happier that anyone at Eddie's win. I just wish he'd win
with the two McLarens and Schumacher still running!
>Wet weather races can be more of a lottery, i.e. who
>hits the standing water and who doesn't. However,
>nobody really dropped out from in front of Frentzen
>due to blind luck (Mika overcooked it, MS was
>(uncharacteristically) unlucky with his choice
>of setup, and did not benefit from the race organisers
>being conservative with their timing of ending
>the safety car period.
Jordan posted a 'weather spotter' out on the other side of the track with
a mobile phone who reported back on the weather conditions well before
they'd be spotted in the pits. Apparently it was on his advice they
changed the strategy.
It does take a bit of the 'luck' factor out of his win.
>Berger's win was masterful, especially so soon after
>his father's death and having to miss races due to
>poor health. Admittedly he was behind (? - from
>memory) GF when GF's tyre blew out, but only bad
>luck had put him behind.
I was amazed (and thrilled) at Berger's pace in both race and
qualifying. GB was ahead of GF when the tyre blew: though
Giancarlo got ahead when Gerhard came out of the pits, and
the second next chicane Giancarlo made a mistake and
Gerhard was through in a flash, and went on to build up a 4-5
second lead. Then Giancarlo started putting in fast laps (due
to lightening fuel load?) and started reeling him in, but then
the tyre blew and the race win was gone.
>Personally I think there's a lot less luck involved
>in the victories mentioned than you suggest.
True, if you're fast, consistent and reliable, you don't need luck ;)
Millenium bug? Pah! That won't hit me for another -99 years...Doh!