On Barichello

[Chris Strange]

A lot has been said on Rubens Barichello lately, including bad jokes about his no 2 status in the team. The fact is that he took the right decision in joining Ferrari. Look at Eddie Irvine, maybe he's no 1 in his team but that means 4 championships points, Rubens managed to score 62 points for his first season with Ferrari and his first ever race win! I remember Gehrard Berger leaving Ferrari because he did not want to play No 2 to Schumacher, well he ended No 10 instead!!!! Rubens in my opinion did an outstanding job along Schumacher and we'll see what he is really capable of next year.

[neutral]

Yeh he did OK, but dont expect anything different next year.

[Don K]

Originally posted by neutral
Yeh he did OK, but dont expect anything different next year.

OK.
I will expect him to do OK next year.

[LYM]

For me I'll set a particular low OK target for RB:top five. As I expect and hope to see at least 1 Williams driver to be serious title challenger next year.

[Ralf's Girl]

I'm not expecting anything different next year. He'll still be the same number 2 driver he was this season, and he'll still be struggling to beat a Williams instead of being up there with TGF and the McLarens.

[Liz]

He'll be better than last year now he's got the measure of the car, and I think a few of you naysayers (but not Peter Mallett) will see that he's better than you think he is.

I have faith in him just as I had in Gil when everyone was saying he was a washed up nobody. Now he's the champion!

So time wi;l tell about Rubens.

[Peter Mallett]

Well.

If it takes a driver a year to get the measur of the car he's not that good is he?

I can't think of any reason for RB to get any better than he already is.

For the record though, I always thought G de F was a reasonable driver and for him to become champion in champcars is probably less than he deserved.

[Liz]

Of course Gil should have been in F1 but he is happy in Champ Cars and now he's having success I think he will probably be glad he stayed rather than drive for a backmarker team forever...driving for Walker he knows what this feels like.

Oh, I suppose Jensen Button's showing in which it took him a year to get used to the car is also ****? Oh, no, I forgot, he's born perfect. ;_

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by Liz
Oh, I suppose Jensen Button's showing in which it took him a year to get used to the car is also ****? Oh, no, I forgot, he's born perfect. ;_

I don't recall making any excuses for Button. I do think that his first year in F1 was impressive.

You appear to be forgetting that RB has been in F1 for some years now and whilst he's been in some fairly average cars he hasn't exactly set the world alight. (Apart from Donington '93). Furthermore he spent a lot of this year making the Williams, BARs and Jordans look a lot better than they were.

As a driver with vast experience and someone who was quoted as saying he would be challenging for the WDC I don't think even he would suggest that its necessary to take a year to get used to a car?

Do you?

[Gt_R]

Maybe in the past, where Rubens have poorer cars, he have to push himself more to get better results. But now that he has one of the best cars on the grid, he starts to take things for granted and lost some of the aggression.

Maybe Alonso should replace Rubens in 2002?

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by Gt_R
Maybe in the past, .............................
he starts to take things for granted and lost some of the aggression.

Good point.

[Liz]

You have neglected the TGF Factor as well, Peter - perhaps we should add in the "getting used to the fact that he had grossly underestimated the commitment to the Number One A Driver" factor too?

If he's still the same next year then I will concede to you that he's not what I think he is. Remind me if I forget.

[EERO]

I expected more from him than he delivered. Aside from a brilliant drive at Hockenheim, he wasn't nearly close enough to TGF all season. During 1999 at Stewart, he drove with a lot more passion; there were times this season when it looked as though he couldn't be bothered.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally posted by EERO
I expected more from him than he delivered. Aside from a brilliant drive at Hockenheim, he wasn't nearly close enough to TGF all season. During 1999 at Stewart, he drove with a lot more passion; there were times this season when it looked as though he couldn't be bothered.

Exactly.

And Liz. I'm sure you'll remind me if I'm proved wrong.

[Wiki]

I don't rate Rubens very highly. I don't think he did any better in the Ferrari this season than half the grid would have done put in the same car. Yes his Stewart 99 season was impressive, but so was Johnny Herbert's and no offence to him but a lot of that was due to the car being surprising good ...something Jag sadly couldn't capitalise on this year.
Rubens hasn't convinced me that he is a fighter. Yes he is passionate about F1 but I don't think he has it in him to be a regular winner or world champ.

[R]

I like Rubens, and his win at Hockenheim was indeed a memorable moment.

He's IMO the best team-mate TGF has ever had (in terms of driver strength), but still TGF was most of the time far ahead of him. I think that speaks more for TGF's strenghts as a driver than it speaks for Rubens' weaknesses, plus the fact that TGF is a clear No.1 driver at Ferrari. With equal treatment, who knows where Barrichello would be? I still think TGF is better, but Rubens would be an awful lot closer with completely equal treatment, that's my opinion anyway.

[Gt_R]

Hmmm...so Rubens did not have equal treatment in Ferrari this year?? In which way? As in not having the same car as Michael, or having to play second fiddle to Michael?

[chow wei hsien]

i believe Rubens has the equal car with MS. and right from the beginning of the year, he can win against Michael.

the only time he has to play second fiddle is in Canada when MS has brake problems. hmmm... maybe in some races Ross Brawn concentrate more on MS in the crucial stage of the race as MS is the one within a chance of victory. But that happens becoz Rubens is too far behind to be in contention for victory. So, apart from that, i don't see any other unequal treatment for Ruby.

ahh...maybe Ross Brawn did use Rubens as a guinea pig in a damp condition, which is to send Rubens into pits earlier to test the conditions on different tyres, but then again, Rubens is very far behind in those races

[Gt_R]

Precisely...i agree with chow~

One can say that Rubens does not have same equipment. But no teams ever (or hardly) provide equally new chassis to both drivers at the same time. In ANY team, In between races, should a (there isnt much time to built 2 aniway) new chassis be built, it would be given to the driver who is leading the championship charge. And the next driver usually gets the chassis the previous driver used as it is the 2nd newest chassis. However, both cars would be fitted with the latest developements as the cars would be stripped and refitted before the next race.

So, Rubens does have the same technical car with the latest developements on it. However, he still could not consistently challenge Michael, let alone out perform.

Team wise, he was never in the position to help Michael to fend off a Mclaren, or give up his leading position to Michael. In Canada, he did have to ease off and not overtake Michael for the lead. But 1) its the policy of many teams that in the case of 1-2, the drivers would not challenge each other (ie Mclaren) 2) in the earlier part of the race, after Michael's first pit stop, Michael pulled back and slowed the Mclaren of Mika to allow a buffer for Ruben's pit stop. So why should Rubens win the race??? Because if Michael had raced his own, he would have win, and Ruben's would not have a chance!~

So this year, Rubens was given a fair fight with Michael, car, team, and setups, but he lost the fight. And if he is the best of all Michael's teammates, what are the rest?

[R]

Ferrari is the team on the grid with the clearest No.1 strategy. And from the team's point of view, that's a very wise strategy, after all, it won them the WDC this year. TGF gets all the latest developments on his car first, plus the preferential treatment in races. That's what I'm talking about. I'm not saying they had different cars, because I don't believe that. And when the fastest driver gets all these added services, of course there will be a big gap between him and the other driver.

[Wiki]

True but Benetton gave the same advantage to Fisichella (until Wurz finally got to use the qualifying chasis at the end of the season) And BAR did the same with JV .... it's not fair, but that's F1 for you

[Liz]

The only thing unfair about it, really, is pretending that both pilots get the same equipment and letting people believe that the second pilot is just not very good - e.g. Wurz this year as above.

Why not just tell the truth fromt the start?

[Gt_R]

"TGF gets all the latest developments on his car first"

If Ferrari have the resources to provide both cars with the latest developements at the same race, they did. And if they could not, eg they could just produce ONE of the new rear wings done, before the next race, of course they give it to the best driver in the team. Who in the right mind would give it to Rubens first when Michael is better?

For example, Mercedes had only ONE new qualifying engine prepared for Japan, worth 0.5s per lap. Would they give it to Coulthard or Mika?

In all the races this year, the 2 Ferraris have the same engine, the latest aerodynamics, electronics, and even the side pod chimneys. They have the same car, the same developements. Ferrari have the resources to provide 2 cars with the latest. Why compromise their own chance of winning a 1-2?

The only way Ferrari could show preferable treatment is towards the later half of the season, the 2nd driver with less point would give up his position should he be in front of the first driver. In this case, Rubens have to defer to Michael, who leads the point. Mclaren openly declared they practice such team orders too(since Monza). However, Ferrari was never given the chance to do this.

i think as much as Ferrari likes Michael, they like to get the WDC more, no matter who. If Rubens could outperform Michael, no doubt he would be boosted to No1 status and recieve all these treatments instead of MS.

iF critics think that Ferrari only prefers Michael, why did they want Michael to help Eddie last year in Sepang??? Why not let him jus win and clock up 45 victories at the end of 2000 in the history statistics? It only shows Ferrari prefer the driver who do better in the championship (21 years!~) but still, gives them the same stuffs~

[downforce]

why does evryone on this board think Rubens wouldve got past Michael in Canada, if it wern't for team-orders???

As far as Michael is concerned...it was HE who recieved team orders in the first place to BACK-OFF coz of a technical hassle...

[R]

Originally posted by Gt_R

If Ferrari have the resources to provide both cars with the latest developements at the same race, they did. And if they could not, eg they could just produce ONE of the new rear wings done, before the next race, of course they give it to the best driver in the team. Who in the right mind would give it to Rubens first when Michael is better?

Yes. I don't think we really disagree on this. Now I try to look at it from a sporting point of view, and sporting-wise it would be better if they had completely equal treatment. However, when that's not always possible, of course it's correct of Ferrari to give TGF priority. He is after all faster.

I think Liz hits it right on the button in her previous post. The problem is not the preferential treatment, but rather when teams give the impression that both drivers are treated equally when they in reality are not. Benetton is of course the worst example of this. Wurz looked like a real slowcoach this season, but in fact it was the preferential treatment that made the gap between himself and Fisi for most of the season. That was proven in the last GP when the roles were completely reversed, Wurz had the preferential treatment, and Fisi was out in the cold.