Williams stun us again.

Williams stun us again.

Post by P.B. Dijkst » Wed, 28 Aug 1996 04:00:00


After making us think they had an adequate pit-strategy. They failed again.
Great Job giving mr I might be tallented but don't put me under pressure or
I pull a Novotna( aka I choke) Hill the chamionship.
PBD

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Jeff Ange » Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:00:00


(P.B. Dijkstra), the following was written:

Quote:
> After making us think they had an adequate pit-strategy. They failed
> again.

Depends on your POV, I suppose...

They DO have an adequate pit-strategy...now all they have to do is get
the cars INTO the pits.

                                               j.l.

--
---------------------------------
Fugawi MotorSports Productions
Online Promotions and Video Presentations
P.O.Box 6761 Torrance, CA 90504-0761

---------------------------------

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Dan Prene » Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:


> (P.B. Dijkstra), the following was written:

> > After making us think they had an adequate pit-strategy. They failed
> > again.

> Depends on your POV, I suppose...

> They DO have an adequate pit-strategy...now all they have to do is get
> the cars INTO the pits.

How devious should we be in our thinking?

The constructor's championship is already decided.  The main undecided
outcome is the driver's championship.  If Hill had finished the race in a
significantly better position than Villeneuve, it would have made it highly
unlikely that Villeneuve could win the driver's championship.

So their messing up the pit stops might have been the best thing they
could do to maintain people's interest in the rest of the season.

(This line of reasoning notwithstanding, I don't believe they messed up
the pit stops intentionally.  But it is amusing to contemplate.)
--


 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by EBrand » Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Just because Damon cannot start, and does not come from behind well,
doesn't mean that people should defend him. He got outdriven by Jacque and
Schumacher. He will probably cost himself the championship. Perhaps he
should purchase a copy of GP2, so that he can put himself in the #1 car.

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Andre Molyne » Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:00:00

: Just because Damon cannot start, and does not come from behind well,
: doesn't mean that people should defend him.

Er, what defences of Hill are you reffering to?  Yes, he got a bad
start, and would have been unlikely to finish higher than third as
a result.  This was entirely Hill's fault.  However, he drove quite
well afterwards, and might well have finished on the podium if it
hadn't been for the botched pit instructions.  (In the end, however,
Williams pit snafu cost Villeneuve more points than Hill, so in a way
this was to his benefit.)

Hill's starts have been causing him no end of grief lately, but I've
been impressed by how much of the lost ground he manages to make up.
Hill's had to fight it out back in the pack for the last few races,
but still manages to bring home points.  I wouldn't call his driving
spectacular, but he seems to be making the most of a bad situation.

The problem is that the bad situation is something under his control.

: He got outdriven by Jacque and Schumacher.

In this case, I'd say he got out-dragged by JV and Schuie.  I'm not
a Hill "fan", but in my opinion, the Hill/Williams combination is still
the fastest one out there.  For the sake of the championship fight, I
hope that Villeneuve continues to beat Hill at the starts, so there
will be some doubt as the race progresses.  Otherwise, if Hill is in
the lead once they've gotten through the first corner, I don't think
JV will be able to beat him.

This is no knock against Villeneuve.  I think he's done a great job
this year, and (if he's teamed with Hill again next year) he may well
prove to be faster.  However, Hill currently has the advantage of
having raced a F1 car on all the courses, and that extra experience
seems to make the difference.

: He will probably cost himself the championship. Perhaps he
: should purchase a copy of GP2, so that he can put himself in the #1 car.

You're reading way too much into Villeneuve's simulator comment.  In
past events, it hasn't been unusual for Villeneuve to have a better
time than Hill two-thirds of the way through a qualifying session.
However, in every case except Australia, Hill pops in a faster time
than Villeneuve towards the end of the session.  We don't know if
he would have done the same at Spa, since the rain effectively
cut short the qualifying session.

Andre
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Molyneux                       Sun Microsystems Computer Company

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by David Sidwel » Fri, 30 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> After making us think they had an adequate pit-strategy. They failed again.
> Great Job giving mr I might be tallented but don't put me under pressure or
> I pull a Novotna( aka I choke) Hill the chamionship.
> PBD

PBD,

    Please explain how Williams pit-stop screw-up which cost Damon Hill
a dozen places at least, and may have cost Jacques Villeneuve a single
place gives Hill the championship ?   I really have tried to understand
your post, but perhaps you lost something in your English translation
???  If one were at all paranoid then there is much more sense in a
*** theory that Williams deliberately screwed up Hill's pit-stop
so that he would not be able to take the number 1 plate away from
Williams next year :*)

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Christine Johnsto » Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:00:00


Quote:


>: Just because Damon cannot start, and does not come from behind well,
>: doesn't mean that people should defend him.

>Er, what defences of Hill are you reffering to?  Yes, he got a bad
>start, and would have been unlikely to finish higher than third as
>a result.  This was entirely Hill's fault.  However, he drove quite
>well afterwards, and might well have finished on the podium if it
>hadn't been for the botched pit instructions.  (In the end, however,
>Williams pit snafu cost Villeneuve more points than Hill, so in a way
>this was to his benefit.)

Well..... if you look at the start over again you'll see it wasn't
actually bad.  Not great, but not bad.  If everybody had had a normal
start he would have slotted into his alloted 2nd but Schu had a great
start and almost took JV as well.  With the wet side of the grid and the
start on a slope he was never going to make a great start.  At Spa you
just hope you make it round La Source in one piece.
 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Mike Bea » Sat, 31 Aug 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> Well..... if you look at the start over again you'll see it wasn't
> actually bad.  Not great, but not bad....

        Really, Christine, I'm surprised at this. It's time you checked your
specs: the rose-coloured coating is beginning to cloud your hitherto
respected judgement.

        Damon's bad starts have been commented on by everyone, and
acknowledged by him. They are not opinion. They are not illusion. They are
fact.

        At Spa, from second on the grid, he was fourth after three turns.

        I would call this "a bad start".
        Many respected contributors to this ng have called it "a bad start".  
        Jonathan Palmer called it "a bad start".
        Murray Walker called it "another bad start".
        Damon Hill called it "a bad start".

        Nobody called it "not a bad start".
        Nobody said "it was a fair start".

        He's a big boy. He can take the truth. You don't have to protect him
from cold, hard reality.

        Christine: Damon Hill made a bad start at Spa.

--Mike

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Christine Johnsto » Sun, 01 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

>, Christine, I'm surprised at this. It's time you checked your
>specs: the rose-coloured coating is beginning to cloud your hitherto
>respected judgement.

>    Damon's bad starts have been commented on by everyone, and
>acknowledged by him. They are not opinion. They are not illusion. They are
>fact.

No I was willing to concede a bad start until I watched it over again.
As I said, it wouldn't have won any awards but we've seen worse.

Quote:
>    At Spa, from second on the grid, he was fourth after three turns.

I'm a bit of a purist here........ 'start' for me is getting off the
line.  If you lose a place after eau rouge then you only have yourself to
blame.

Quote:
>    I would call this "a bad start".
>    Many respected contributors to this ng have called it "a bad start".  
>    Jonathan Palmer called it "a bad start".
>    Murray Walker called it "another bad start".
>    Damon Hill called it "a bad start".

Actually he said "I made a better start than I expected to considering
there was water on my side of the track".

Quote:
>    Nobody called it "not a bad start".
>    Nobody said "it was a fair start".

And you've gotta take off the rose tinted specs where Murray and the Beeb
are concerned.  On Eurosport they said these things and Watson is waaaaay
down the list of Damon supporters.  Autosport says he made a swifter
start than of late.  If he got a 'bad' start then so did JV as they came
off the line at the same time.  But both Schu and Coulthard got better
starts than either of them.  Whatever the mark is between good and bad
then that's it.  Bad for me involves chugging off the line, wheel spin
and losing 3 places or so to average starters.
 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Spencer Steven » Mon, 02 Sep 1996 04:00:00


Quote:

>> Well..... if you look at the start over again you'll see it wasn't
>> actually bad.  Not great, but not bad....

>       Really, Christine, I'm surprised at this. It's time you checked your
>specs: the rose-coloured coating is beginning to cloud your hitherto
>respected judgement.

>       Damon's bad starts have been commented on by everyone, and
>acknowledged by him. They are not opinion. They are not illusion. They are
>fact.

>       At Spa, from second on the grid, he was fourth after three turns.

I agree with Christine on this one.  Hill's start was not as bad as
everyone is making it out to be.  In fact Hill lost very little ground
to Villeneuve by the time they reached La Source.  Schumacher had a
fantastic start, and was neck and neck with JV on entry to La Source.

Coulthards overtaking was nothing to do with the start.  I haven't
heard what the official view of this is (I doubt if one has been
published) but when you bear in mind Hill had a severe understeer
problem on his car, and Eau Rouge was the first bend he had committed
himself to in that car - I'm sure it was quite a scary moment to find
his car pushing on there.  The only way to keep it on the track in
that situation is to scrub speed through the slide and kill exit speed.
This would make perfect sense for Coulthard, backed by the powerful
Merc engine, to get alongside Hill into Les Combes.

Quote:
>       Nobody called it "not a bad start".
>       Nobody said "it was a fair start".

Well not quite nobody.

--
Spencer Stevens

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Mike Bea » Tue, 03 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Quote:

> And you've gotta take off the rose tinted specs where Murray and the Beeb
> are concerned.  On Eurosport they said these things and Watson is waaaaay
> down the list of Damon supporters.  Autosport says he made a swifter
> start than of late.  If he got a 'bad' start then so did JV as they came
> off the line at the same time.  But both Schu and Coulthard got better
> starts than either of them.  Whatever the mark is between good and bad
> then that's it.  Bad for me involves chugging off the line, wheel spin
> and losing 3 places or so to average starters.

Well, I don't want to beat it to death. I wish Damon no ill, and have said
before that I admire what he's done. But he's simply losing places, while
the other top drivers are holding or gaining. Qualitatively fair,
perhaps, but poor comparatively. What may be a fair-to-good start for
Ricardo Rosset from 14th doesn't cut it in the first two rows.

But what we say don't matter a darn. It's results, dammit, and surely
Damon's great fans have to concede that if he could have held position--
just broken even instead of losing spots --a few more times, the Drivers'
Championship would be over by now.

Hey, it's us race fans (and especially the JV fanatics) that have
benefitted, as there's some real e***ment in the show now. As for me, well
natch I'm pulling for JV, but there's a part of me that hopes that Damon
rights the ship. Why? Because if he doesn't, if he does lose the WC, Damon
Hill 1996 will (rightly or wrongly) take a stool alongside such as Toronto
Blue Jays 1987, Newcastle United 1995-96, and Greg Norman Augusta 1996,
those who pissed away insurmountable leads, crumbling within sight of the
victory pole. It's ugly to watch, but what's even uglier is the vicious
self-serving sniping of small minds who themselves have never been anywhere
near the kind of pressure to perform that these great games and great
athletes produce--more vicious nowhere than in Damon's homeland!

He doesn't deserve it, nor does he deserve the shoddy treatment Frank
Williams has handed him.   --Mike

 
 
 

Williams stun us again.

Post by Jo?o Costa Pereir » Thu, 05 Sep 1996 04:00:00

Well, tank you Andre. At last I see someone look at this matter without
beeing a fan of one of the drivers. I've loved your post and I'm glad that
someone send some posts and really knows what is talking about.

The rest is almost geman, british or canadian ***faction.

Keep on.
                                   \|/
                                 (oo )
                                ( <_  )    
-----------------o00o-----o00o------------------
Jo?o Costa Pereira
Cascais - Portugal

------------------------------------------------