luke36

Non capisco come Massa possa lamentarsi. Ha scelto lui una linea "particolare" e Bruno ha semplicemente tenuto la sua linea. Tutti i rischi li ha presi Massa. Gli ? andata bene che non si sia schiantato con l'effetto pendolo.

Nel dettaglio chiedo: a - perch? mettere le SS quando mancava mezza gara almeno ? Errore tattico. Se non era per la SC che ha salvato un errore tattico marchiano, saremmo qui a parlare di disastro. b - perch? quando Vergne ha anticipato il pit per mettere le soft, Bruno ? stato tenuto in pista per due o tre giri ? La gara era su Vergne che aveva ormai dietro. Altro errore tattico. c - se Bruno ? abile nella gestione della gara, perch? non assecondarlo meglio dai box ? Qualifiche: il rischio di pelare i muri vale per tutti. Nessuno escluso. Se commetti pi? volte lo stesso errore, sei diabolico. Partire dietro ? devastante per la gara che nonostante tutto, era riuscito a raddrizzare in qualche modo.

Perdonami ma ? meglio che adotti la strategia del "silenzio". Non provare a giustificarti. Potremmo scrivere un libro sul tuo sarcasmo verso Kimi, spesso nauseante. Soprattutto "ripetitivo". Una vera e propria nenia. Il troppo stroppia.

La gara di Maldonado di oggi dimostra una sola cosa: le rotture sono messe in conto sin dall'inizio della stagione. Quando si rompe la macchina amen. Ma gli incidenti, spesso causati, potrebbero essere evitati. Oggi ? uscita "problema idraulico". Peccato che era ben messo in gara.

Per carit?. Io non segnalo nulla.

Dimentichi sempre la Cina. Punti pesanti buttati nel secchio. Non comprendo perch? tu ti diverta cos? tanto a fare il sarcastico con Kimi e sparargli addosso, da sempre. Quanto ero moderatore ci passavo sempre sopra, pensando che fosse il tuo modo di essere spiritoso. Ma mi sbagliavo. Ora, dare dei demeriti a Kimi in questa stagione, mi pare esilarante ! Se non ci fosse lui, la Lotus avrebbe Grosjean che, a parte la freschezza della giovent?, non ha niente di tattico nel cervello. Non a caso ha commesso cappellate a iosa quest'anno. La Lotus dovrebbe stendere il tappeto rosso a Kimi ! E' lui che porta i "PUNTI" ! Non certo Grosjean. Il pilota si giudica per la consistenza. Alonso ? consistente ! E porta punti. Kimi uguale. Prova ad indovinare dove sono classificati quest'oggi. Grosjean ?

Ma. Mi pare molto chiaro che il problema ? la Lotus e non il pilota. In gara Kimi ? stato sostanzialmente pi? efficace di Grosjean. In qualifica Kimi pi? falloso. Come sempre le caramelle si danno a fine gara. Mi pare che Kimi abbia consolidato il 3? in classifica. Considerando che questa pista non era per la Lotus, molto bene.

Evidentemente cos? vogliono gli Dei. La prima parte di gara mi ? molto piaciuta. Finalmente un cambio gomme "tattico" e al momento "giusto" che gli ha fatto guadagnare molte posizioni. Finalmente ! Poi il cambio gomme con le SS Fortuna ha voluto che ? entrata la SC si da rimettere le soft, ovviamente hanno dormito o forse hanno favorito Pastor che in quel momento era in lotta, facendo rientrare lui per il cambio e costringendo Bruno ad un altro giro. Certo, era 10? alla fine ...... ma il motore (?) ha ceduto. Insomma si dice che chi parte con il piede giusto ? a met? dell'opera. Qui Bruno deve solo darsi le bastonate sui denti !

Posso solo dire due cose: a - chi ? causa del proprio male, pianga se stesso b - aiutati che Dio ti aiuta

Partire 22? ? un suicidio. Passare le Catheram sar? gi? un problema. Poi avremo Kobayashi e li saranno guai. A meno di situazioni sconvolgenti, Bruno non andr? oltre la 14?. Il solo modo che ha di recuperare ? cercare di sfruttare al massimo le sue gomme SS, cercare di guadagnare sempre sui diretti avversari quando questi pittano, rimanendo anche due giri in pi? in pista ma spingendo alla morte per guadagnare posizioni, dal momento che qui non si sorpassa facilmente. Detto questo, il limite lo cercano tutti i piloti. Se si sbatte amen ma ...... perseverare ? diabolico !

Non so cosa si possa commentare dopo quello che ha combinato Bruno tra ieri e oggi.

?

Elmetto ?

Buono il tempo di Bruno

Questa foto non l'avevo mai vista.

Lui deve fare quello che si sente di fare.

A meno di follie suicide, il campionato pu? perderlo solo Alonso e la Ferrari.

Forse Scheckter, suo grande amico, riassume la filosofia di Gilles alle corse. C'? da chiedersi se fosse la migliore ai fini di un campionato o di una singola gara. Proprio questo il topic vuole sviscerare. "Motor racing was a romantic thing for him, you see." Scheckter went on. "We were close friends, doing the same job for the same team, but we had completely opposite attitudes to it. My preoccupation was keeping myself alive, but Gilles had to be the fastest on every lap - even in testing. He was the fastest racing driver the world has ever seen. If he could come back and live his life again, I think he would do exactly the same - and with the same love."

Navigando per il web, mi sono imbattuto in questo articolo "Winning Going Slowly" by Clive James. Prende spunto da una frase, attribuita a Niki Lauda, per sviscerare le personalit? pilotistiche di grandi piloti del passato com Prost, Mansell, Castellotti, Piquet e altri. In fondo si parla dell'eterno conflitto che anche oggi crea discussioni bibiliche su questo forum e cio? se ? meglio un pilota "passista" o un "testa calda sfasciamacchine". Penso che l'articolo potrebbe essere una buona base di discussione per noi, nel tentativo "urbano" di provare a conoscere meglio le personalit? dei grandi piloti del passato. Buona lettura. Winning Going Slowly ?The secret?, said Niki Lauda, ?is to win going as slowly as possible?. This remark is sometimes attributed to another and even greater racing driver, Juan Manuel Fangio. Perhaps Niki Lauda was quoting it without acknowledgment. Anyway, I actually heard Lauda say this, at a pre-race press conference in Portugal in 1984, the year he came back from the burns unit all the way to his second World Championship. As far as I know, I was the only reporter who wrote it down. None of the other Formula One correspondents had come to Estoril to study philosophy and neither had I, but even at the time it struck me as a profound remark from someone who had only one race left to snatch the title, and one way or another I have been thinking about what he said ever since. In its specific application to motor racing, the idea is simply right. You can?t win the race unless you finish, and the driver who is kind to his car is most likely to go the distance. A Formula One car has very little redundancy in its make-up: it can be hurt by a single missed gear change. In the turbo days the fiercer drivers blew their engines early. Whatever the current specifications of the formula, the tyres are always critical, so the smooth driver will soon be driving a different car to the one wrestled by the less smooth, no matter how spectacular the latter might look. Fangio, Jim Clark and Jackie Stewart, three of the all-time great champion drivers (Clark might have won more races than the other two put together if he had not been killed in an accident that wasn?t his fault), were all kind to the car. Alain Prost, who won more Grand Prix races at a quicker rate than anybody until Michael Schumacher came along, was considered uncanny even by the other drivers for the way his cars held together: it was as if he could hear what was going on in the engine. Prost was the car?s friend. Other drivers treated the car no more tactfully than they treated women. I was actually Nelson Piquet?s passenger in a Nissan sports car on the ad hoc track at Caesar?s Palace hotel in Las Vegas when Mario Andretti went past in a similar car. It was supposed to be a demonstration run but Piquet immediately went frantic to catch up: he always drove with passion and that was his problem. He won the World Championship twice but broke down more often than he should have, and when his passion went he could scarcely drive at all. Stirling Moss, on the other hand, rarely broke down through his own fault. The main reason he never won a championship was that he condemned himself, through patriotism, to inferior machinery; but he could make it look superior by the economy with which he drove it. When I was making a television special about motor racing I needed an ordinary road licence ? though always crazy about cars, I had never learned to drive ? and we enrolled Moss as my instructor, starting with the very basics. Thus I was inculcated into his principles, which all sprang from his initial precept that the car, not the man, has the power, and the man?s job is not to interfere. Moss never, but never, touched the brake pedal unless the car was moving in a straight line. Braking and changing down were all done before he turned into the corner. As a direct result, he rarely span off. Formula One fans often asked me what it was like to be Moss?s passenger on an ordinary motorway. The answer is that it was hair-raising, but not because you thought he might be out of control. His personal car was a tiny Peugeot but it had plenty of hidden oomph ? it was a wolf in shrew?s clothing ? and you just couldn?t help wondering if all the huge trucks he went zipping closely past were being driven to the same standard. Nobody who was following the fast cars in the 1950s will ever forget Eugenio Castellotti. But he didn?t last long, either in life or in most of his individual races. In the Mille Miglia he drove his Ferrari on the footpath when the road was full of spectators. He was always over the limit, like Jean Behra, another spell-binder who suffered the same fate. In more recent times, the flamboyant Keke Rosberg lived to retire, but it was something of a miracle: in the old days, before carbon fibre monocoque construction made a crash more survivable, he would have been killed ten times. Rosberg?s style thrilled crowds but it strained the machinery. Gilles Villeneuve earned an undeserved reputation for being thrilling to watch. In his time at Ferrari, the car was a monster. He had to fight it all the way, and would have much preferred to look less dazzling: some people wise in the ways of motor racing still think that Villeneuve was the fastest driver ever but that he never had a car to match his talent. As for Ayrton Senna, he was so superior that he could keep the car right on the limit without breaking it. All the drivers in Formula One are superior, even the duffers, but Senna had the full eleven tenths. His winning strategy depended on his ability to go flat out from the jump, with no time wasted playing himself in. The other drivers were meant to be demoralised straight away and usually were, except for Nigel Mansell, who couldn?t be demoralised by a pistol held to his head. The answer to the question of whether Mansell was as quick as Senna is yes, but Mansell was just that crucial bit less easy on the machinery. Senna wasn?t killed by a mistake: he was killed by a component failure, and almost certainly it was not caused by any strain that he imposed ?apart, of course, from the strain necessarily imposed by driving the car as fast as it could go, all the time. The most convincing proof of Senna?s fundamental smoothness was that even the car he drove in his first year at Lotus (a notoriously fragile beast, it was seemingly designed to fall apart before it left the garage) would go several laps before breaking down and sometimes even won. On the subject of Michael Schumacher, questions answer themselves. As was true of Fangio, if his car is on the pace then there are few races Schumacher finishes that he does not win, and for the same combination of reasons: ability, strategic judgment, and sympathy with the machinery. (Fernando Alonso might have all these things too, but he also has, for the moment, a lightly faster car.) The second and third reasons matter more than the first, although the first makes better copy. In reality, there was never that much difference in sheer driving ability between Schumacher and, say, Michele Alboreto in the period when they were still racing each other. But Schumacher?s car got to the chequered flag and Alboreto?s went to the junk yard. In journalism, it is more rewarding to talk about Schumacher?s supernatural reflexes than to dwell on his capacity to think ahead, and there is no mileage at all in writing about what doesn?t show ? his gift for preserving the car against its own inbuilt tendency to disintegrate. A racing car is just the most concentrated possible form of a system tending towards entropy. Schumacher understands the second law of thermodynamics. So did Lauda. That Lauda?s principle has a general application to life might seem a mere truism. Obviously, as long as you get enough exercise, you will live longer if you minimise the time you spend running for a bus. But it gets interesting when applied to the arts. An artist must concentrate, and the more original he is, the more likely it is that he will focus his mental energy beyond the normal tolerance of the human brain in particular or his body in general, let alone the patience of his loved ones. Even if his compensating relaxations do not destroy him, he might well find life difficult. (As we learn from Claire Tomalin?s biography of Jane Austen, the greatest novelist in English was put out of action for ten years by an enforced change of residence.) Proust and his friend the composer Reynaldo Hahn were once touring the garden of a large private house. Proust stopped to look at a rose bush. Hahn left him there, slowly circumnavigated the house, and returned to find him still looking at the rose bush. They remained friends, but only because Proust chose his friends carefully. If you spend half your life in a contemplative trance, you must do your best to ensure that the other half is adapted to that activity, or your life will be short. The secret of applying energy is to economise on effort ? to win going as slowly as possible. (The Monthly, April 2006)

Forse lo stile di guida nasce non solo da un istinto ma anche dall'indole. Leggendo questo pensiero di Gilles sembra come se il pilota volesse per prima cosa dare "soddisfazione" al pubblico che assisteva alla gara, indipendentemente da calcoli o tattiche per la gara o il campionato. "I love motor racing. To me it's a sport, not a technical exercise. My ideal Formula One car would be something like a McLaren M23 with a big normally aspirated engine, 800 hp, 21 inch rear tyres. A lot of people say we should have narrower tires, but I don't agree because you need big tyres to slow you down when you spin. And you need a lot of horsepower to unstick big tyres, to make the cars slide. That would be a bloody fantastic spectacle, I can tell you. We would take corners one gear lower than we do now, and get the cars sideways. You know, people still rave about Ronnie Peterson in a Lotus 72, and I understand that. I agree with them. That's the kind of entertainment I want to give the crowds. Smoke the tyres ! Yeah ! I [care about the fans], because I used to be one of them ! I believe the crowd is really losing out at the moment, and that's bad."

Si. In fondo il topic dovrebbe far chiarezza sulle personalit? dei piloti del passato, sulle loro tattiche e modi di interpretare le gare o di affrontare il rischio. Ma vedo che il "decollo" ? difficoltoso :unsure: Certo, il ragionamento di Niki Lauda non si addice pi? alla formula 1 di oggi, ove la rottura meccanica ? diventata una rarit? e quindi la gestione del mezzo meccanico (come diceva il buon Poltronieri) era una dote fondamentale per portare a termine le gare, possibilmente vincendole. Forse si potrebbe iniziare con lo sviscerare la personalit? di guida di ....... Gilles Villeneuve Esempio di come la gestione del mezzo fosse quasi una bestemmia, ove il concetto del tutto o niente prevaleva sempre. Questa sua frase, riassume un p? il suo approccio alle corse, la sua filosofia di pilota. Si potrebbe partire da qui. "I don't have any fear of a crash. No fear of that. Of course, on a fifth gear corner with a fence outside, I don't want to crash. I'm not crazy. But if its near the end of practice, and your trying for pole position maybe, I guess you can squeeze the fear ..."

Prof Sid Watkins was the head of the F1 medical team for 26 years and is a hugely revered figure in motor racing. The deepest personal relationship he had with any driver, he says, was with Senna. They became close when Senna was driving for Toleman and he treated him for spasms in his neck muscles. After that Senna would seek him out for a chat at every race weekend. Senna visited Watkins?s house in Scotland, and Watkins went to Senna?s farm in Brazil and they would fish together. Over lunch in the Langham hotel in London, the twinkly 82-year-old doctor, known as Prof, tells me about Senna. About the time when Senna offered him $25,000 to eat a whole chilli but Prof was having none of it because he knew that the last person Senna had made that bet with had to have a colonoscopy as a result. 'Senna was a bit of a devil. He was a devil on the track and he was a devil in a road car. He drove me once from Bologna airport. My wife was in the car too and Senna?s mother and his sister ? they were both reading the Bible at the time, and I soon understood why: we came to a red light with two lines of cars ? probably 20 cars in each line and a gap down the middle ? and what did Senna do? He went for the gap in the middle. My wife could see my jaw clenching in the rear-view mirror.? When Senna went to Scotland (this time Watkins drove; when they reached his house, Senna said to him, 'Professor, I want you to know that you?re a very good, very safe driver. But painfully slow?) he gave a talk at Watkins?s sons? school, Loretto, about the life of a grand prix driver. He prepared slides, talked for 30 minutes and then took questions. One boy asked, 'How is it that you can drive for a tobacco company when you know smoking kills people?? Senna took a long time to answer, then he said, 'Look at it like this: the tobacco company pays me a great deal of money that I can use to help a large number of children in Brazil, hospitals and clinics. I?m able to help a lot of people who otherwise wouldn?t get help.? 'There was no bullshit about him. Zero,? Watkins says. 'The year he was killed I got a project going whereby if I could raise $1 million from a private source, I would get funding from the European Union and these two sums would go towards a scheme for educating medical assistants in the upper Amazon in Brazil. I said to Ayrton, I need a million, and he said OK, just like that. He put the money up and we set up the training school at the beginning of 1994 ? at the end of that year he and I were going up the Amazon to inspect how the scheme was going, but of course he got killed.? Watkins thinks that had he not died Senna would one day have been president of Brazil. 'He had that quality ? well actually much better quality than your average politician ? he was so intent on helping the people of Brazil.?

?

Lui c'era sempre !