Ask Nigel Roebuck: July 10

Dear Peter,

You're right, some journalists have compared the A1-Ring debacle with what happened at Jerez in '97, but to me the circumstances were somewhat different.

First, a bit of 'background' concerning the build-up to that race at Jerez. Rightly or wrongly, there was a widespread perception at that time that events at Suzuka (the previous race and penultimate round of that year's World Championship) had...worked very much in Ferrari's favour, let's put it that way.

Jacques Villeneuve, then the Williams team leader, had gone to Japan with a nine-point lead over Michael Schumacher. The Williams-Renault FW19 was undoubtedly the best car of the season, and there seemed little realistic hope of Schumacher's being able to challenge JV for the title going to the last round, at Jerez. Ferrari, apart from anything else, were very much off the pace at that time, Michael having recently qualified ninth at both Monza and the A1-Ring, and fifth at the Nurburgring. In those three races, he had scored precisely two points.

So we went off to Japan, and there - to the surprise of most - the Ferraris were restored to full competitiveness, Schumacher qualifying second and Eddie Irvine third. Only problem was, that man Villeneuve again took the pole.

During practice, however, JV had gone through a 'yellow' zone without, according to officials, backing off sufficiently, and although several other drivers had done the same, he was at the time under a suspended one-race ban, for an infringement earlier in the season. Thus, the stewards declared, Villeneuve was to be excluded from the rest of the meeting. Williams appealed, and Jacques was allowed to race 'under appeal'.

In reality, no one thought there was the slightest chance of the Williams appeal succeeding, but there were still things JV could do to influence the race. He duly led from the start, was quickly passed by Irvine (who had gone to the grid with about four pints of fuel in his car), and then held Schumacher up as much as possible, hoping that, in his frustration, Michael - himself under pressure from Mika Hakkinen's McLaren - would make a mistake, and drop it.

Ultimately, Schumacher got ahead - just - at the first stops, and thereafter the thing was settled. Irvine duly backed off, allowing Michael into the lead, then held up Jacques. Now it would be a World Championship decider at Jerez - and Schumacher led Villeneuve (whose appeal was turned down) by a single point.

After the race in Japan, there was a widespread feeling in the paddock that Ferrari had been favoured/Williams had been reamed (delete to taste). That was point one. Point two was that, over the Suzuka weekend, there loomed the spectre of legal action between Williams/McLaren and the FIA. Frank Williams and Ron Dennis were in dispute with the governing body over TV and other income, as detailed in the new Concorde Agreement, which had been signed earlier in the year by virtually every other team.

What I'm saying is that there was a good deal of anger around in F1 at that time, and it was in this atmosphere that everyone headed off to Jerez - where, very remarkably, Villeneuve and Schumacher qualified one-two, their times identical to the thousandth of a second (1m 21.072s); even more astonishingly, this time was also set by Heinz-Harald Frentzen, Villeneuve's Williams team-mate. On this occasion, Irvine was unable to fulfil his 'slave' role, qualifying only seventh in the second Ferrari.

Although it has never been admitted publicly, there is no doubt that Williams and McLaren worked together that day. Schumacher led Villeneuve and Frentzen from the start, and the first to pit was Jacques, on lap 22, who dropped temporarily to fifth. Michael came in next time round, and rejoined still ahead of JV, but at the head of the field Frentzen slowed the pace, to allow Jacques to close up, and Hakkinen - running second - made no attempt to pass him...

So this was the situation: Frentzen leading Hakkinen and Schumacher - with Villeneuve closing on all of them. When Heinz and Mika made their stops, Michael and Jacques were one-two again, and the battle was on. Then came the infamous moment when Villeneuve went for the lead, and Schumacher drove into him. For once, Michael's ruthlessness worked against him: his Ferrari was out on the spot, while JV's Williams, although damaged, was able to continue.

In the closing stages it was Villeneuve leading, from the McLarens of David Coulthard and Hakkinen. By radio Williams reminded JV of Hakkinen's not passing Frentzen (and picking up the pace) earlier on, and McLaren pointed out to DC that Mika had sacrificed more than he in that traffic jam at the front.

As well as that, there was also the fact that Hakkinen, despite coming agonisingly close any number of times, had yet to win his first grand prix. This was the last race of the season, and an ideal opportunity to get that monkey off his back.

Villeneuve, needing only fifth place to clinch the championship, was happy enough to back off in his damaged car, and allow the McLarens through, but it must be said that Coulthard was rather less pleased to be asked to let Hakkinen pass. They finished thus: Mika, David, Jacques.

It wasn't a particularly savoury episode, as all parties involved will privately concede - but then neither were the events which had prompted it...




Dear James,

Anyone who witnessed Rick Mears's Brabham test at Riverside in 1980 has no doubt that here was a man with the talent to go all the way in F1. Herbie Blash, in fact, describes him as 'the great lost World Champion'. He could have gone to Brabham, as Nelson Piquet's team-mate, but it was an absurdity, as well as an insult, to tell a man who was already a superstar - the year before he had become the CART Champion, and won the Indy 500, in his first full season - he would have to 'bring money' if he wanted the drive.

Mr Mears decided to stay where he was, and no surprise there. The pity is that he could have come into F1 just as Mario Andretti was leaving= it, which would have maintained a strong link between F1 and the USA. However...

So few drivers from North America or Australasia have got into an F1 car in the last 20 years or so that it's difficult to point to this guy or that, and say he would have made it if he'd had the chance. To be honest, no one particularly springs to mind.

In the time of Juan Manuel Fangio, however, someone once wrote a few lines, suggesting that somewhere on this earth there had to be a bus driver or taxi driver or whatever with all the qualities necessary to become world champion - but that we would never know it, because he would never get the opportunity to show it.

That's always stuck in my mind, and I remember it came back to me one day in a conversation with Gilles Villeneuve. We were talking about other drivers, about who he thought really quick, really talented, and who he thought over-rated. We'd been through a long list, and then he said this: "There's a guy I raced against in Formula Atlantic, called Tom Klausler. A very quiet, shy, guy, not at all pushy, and he never had much money. But I tell you what: he had as much natural ability as anyone I've ever seen in a race car - and the world's never going to know it..."



Dear Richard,

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't see Fiat's financial woes affecting Ferrari in the slightest. Fiat may be in a terrible state, but Ferrari spends more - much more - on its F1 programme than any other team, and I expect that to continue for the foreseeable future.

These days, Ferrari, in its own right, is a hugely profitable company - there aren't many car manufacturers, even a low-volume, highly specialised one like this, which can afford deliberately to limit production, so as to maintain a high degree of 'exclusivity' - or, to put it another way, to keep their cars from becoming common!

Yes, the end of tobacco sponsorship will hurt them, as it will hurt virtually every F1 team, but Ferrari, far more than most, will have little trouble in replacing that money. Even in the financial climate of today, companies are queueing up to sponsor them. Don't lose any sleep worrying about Ferrari's future!



Dear Paul,

I know what you're saying, but the world has changed, hasn't it? I remember once talking to Alain Prost about the Tour de France, and its heroes. "When I was growing up," he said, "the great favourite was Raymond Poulidor, who nearly won the Tour many times, but never did. Then you had Jacques Anquetil, who won it five times - and he was far less popular! That's the way the French are, you know. They don't like winners - they prefer the second man, the glorious, emotional, loser..."

If Alain was making a specific point about the French, broadly what he said applied to other nations, too. Are not we in England, after all, famously known for 'supporting the underdog'?

In the brash world of today, however, I think that situation has largely changed. To me, there have always been parallels between Ferrari and Manchester United - and I'm not referring to the fact that both are sponsored by Vodafone! At one time, the magic of Ferrari - and United - stemmed from their very unpredictability, that fact that they could be unbeatable one weekend, hopeless the next. You were kept on the edge of your seat, in other words.

These days, though, what people seem to like is crushing supremacy - so long, that is, as long as it's your team which is doing the crushing! I may be getting a little bored with setting off to an airport every other week, to catch a plane heading off to yet another Ferrari demonstration, but millions across the world are clearly very happy with that situation.

In the short term, it's bad for F1 to have one team dominating so completely, but it's not as though it has never happened before: think of 1992, for example, when the 'active' Williams-Renault FW14B was so much better than its opposition that not only was Nigel Mansell able to stroll to the World Championship, but his team-mate Riccardo Patrese was able to beat Ayrton Senna into second place!

So don't worry about damage to the Ferrari 'brand'. The team may not these days be the 'Scuderia Ferrari' of old - but then its results are incomparably better! If any 'brands' are being damaged, I would have thought it is those of companies being blown aside by Maranello.



Dear Greg,

If I knew the answer to that question, I wouldn't be an F1 journalist - I'd be earning a fortune, working for one of the tyre companies!

In fact, I've written this week's Fifth Column on that very subject. Had it not rained at Silverstone on Sunday, I'm not saying that Juan Pablo Montoya would have been able to beat the Ferraris to the flag, but I'm very sure he would have given it a hell of a go - as we sawin the early laps, when he held off Schumacher, and revealed all his fighting qualities.

Then it rained - and as soon as that happened, JPM was hobbled. Although the track became slippery, there was never enough of a downpour for pools of standing water to develop, and in that situation what you need is an intermediate, rather than wet, tyre.

While Bridgestone have developed an intermediate supremely effective, as Michael Schumacher said, 'in a variety of different conditions', Michelin's intermediate has such a notorious reputation that most Michelin users - including Montoya - never even gave it a thought. Juan went back into the race on full wets, and within two or three laps Michael had passed him as if he weren't there.

After 15 years away from F1, Michelin came back in 2001, so this is effectively only their second season, and inevitably Bridgestone have far more experience with contemporary F1 tyres. That said, however, there is no doubt that Michelin's performances this year have been a consummate disappointment, and I think the company does itself no favours by persistently seeking to minimise its own part in the failure of Williams and McLaren truly to get on terms with Ferrari.

No one is trying to crucify Michelin, but the fact remains that Bridgestone have contributed very considerably to Ferrari's superiority in 2002. These things happen in F1 - it's inevitable. On the engine front, for example, Ferrari and BMW are doing a very much better job than Mercedes and Honda. Maybe next year the situation will be compeletly different, but for now that's the way it is, and there's point in pretending otherwise. End of story.

To read Nigel's Fifth Column get this week's AUTOSPORT, which goes on sale on Thursday July 11.



Dear Simon,

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about Michael! In the season so far, he has scored 86 points out of a possible 100, and no one driver has ever dominated a season as completely as that. Seven wins, two seconds, and a third...pretty hard to improve on that, isn't it?

True enough, Barrichello out-qualified him at Silverstone, but in 10 races Michael has started ahead of Rubens seven times, so he still holds the upper hand when it comes to the single banzai, and that's pretty remarkable for a guy who has been at this for more than 10 years. Personally, I feel that Juan Pablo Montoya is at least as quick as Michael, but he doesn't have the same car, and neither does he have the same experience. There's no short cut to that.

Going back to Schumacher and Barrichello, I somewhat doubt that Michael is 'losing some of his ultimate pace', although that will start to happen at some point, because that's what always happens to racing drivers - even the greatest of them - if they keep going long enough.

So far, though, I don't believe that has happened to Schumacher - and as soon as it does I think he'll quit. No, I think what has happened in 2002 is that, first, Barrichello has a car which suits his right-foot braking style better than any previous Ferrari he has driven, and, second, Rubens, entirely happy with his life, and with his confidence at an all-time high, is driving better than at any time in his career.

Put it this way, if Schumacher were not around, Barrichello is now emphatically good enough to win a World Championship for Ferrari, and prior to this year I'm not sure I would have said that. His talent has always been from the top drawer, but his self-confidence - until now - could never keep pace. These days Rubens is driving brilliantly, and doing so consistently.

Look at Michael's other team-mates through his F1 career: by and large, the only time they ever saw him was in the motorhome...