S12 E10: What if Schumacher chose McLaren over Ferrari? Your questions answered!

As we approach the finish line of the twelfth season of Bring Back V10s, which is a number I can't believe we've made it to, that means it's time to end this series as we have every series and as we did in the very beginning, which is to take questions from our audience about everyone's brilliant V10 era. As always, we've had way too many questions from race members club this time, so as well as piling through some of our favourites here, we'll do more members only bonus shows between now and the start of season 13. And joining me, Glen Freeman, to work through the batch that we've got today are Edstore, Ben Anderson and Mark Hughes. Mark, good to have you back to help us see out season 12. Is there a particular question that's caught your eye from our selection today? There's a couple actually, but one of them is about Damon Hill, so I'll leave that for Ben at the other one. There's a fascinating what if, which I'm looking forward to getting my teeth into. Yeah, you always enjoy the what ifs and so do we. And I think so do the audience. We get loads of loads of those. They like to change a tiny thing about the era and then kind of ask us for all the butterfly effect moments. Ben, the Damon Hill question has been left open for you. Is that a standard? Well, as soon as you sent round the running order and I saw that that question wasn't assigned to me, I was furious and put a note in to say, I have to say something about this. So yeah, obviously the Damon Hill question, but yeah, as Mark said, quite a few fascinating what ifs and I'm also looking forward to Ed tackling the flaky engine manufacturers of the era. Yeah, we might be there a while on that one. Ed, is that has been already preempted what you're going to pick here? Unusually, Ben has hit the nail right on the head with that one. That is the most fun question because there's also different approaches you could take to it. So I've got enjoyed myself having a little bit of think about the best way to tackle it. And I suspect people might not be entirely surprised at the tack I've opted for with that one when we get to it. Well, look forward to that and thank you again to everyone in the race members club who sent questions. I think at the time of recording, we're up to about 180 questions submitted. We'll probably do about a tenth of that here. If we do well, so let's crack on first question. And this is the one where Ben has left a note that says, obviously, I have something to say here as well. But it's going to go to Ed first, and it's from Bazzinator 201, who says, as a shoemaker, fam, I never really got the uproar around the 1994 championship deciding collision bill cut across late and was never more than about halfway alongside Michael. But Ed, this is the interesting bit. How would modern stewarding assess this situation given the current rules of engagement? So your job, Ed, is to apply the current racing rules that we know about. And I think have been published now. I haven't named modern day F1. Apply that to the Adelaide 94 collision. They have indeed been published. I've come prepared as I noted them down because I thought it was worth having the exact wording. And probably the relevant bits are the first pointless have their front axle at least alongside the mirror of the other car, no later than the apex of the corner. Well, I think if you look at the on boards, Hill does clearly achieve that. The mirror of the Bennett on is obviously, obviously it's ahead of the driver, they can't see it, but it's it's in a fairly sort of normal place. And if you look at the actual moment of impact, Hill is there. Now the second thing is to be driven in a safe and controlled manner throughout the maneuver, which includes the entry apex and exit. That is a brief moment where Hill locks up. But I think that's partly in response to the fact you know shoemakers coming as well. But he's being turned in on this, but also that lock up is very brief and it's released and he's fine. So I think if you apply the current rules of engagement, which I'm not a huge fan of, but that's what the question was, then I think it's perfectly legitimate. So that would have been interesting because it could have led to some form of penalty for shoemaker. I guess, I mean, the reason it was so, it was such a big talking point is it was so huge, wasn't it? And we have to remember the critical part of this is that shoemaker had been off and hit the wall. And he had damage that would have caused him problems. So that is another factor. This is an unusual factor in terms of that battle that I think if it went to the stewards today, you'd see them saying, well, shoemaker, the driver of car number five had hit the wall and rejoined the track and knew he may be in trouble. So you would have played that into the motivations for it. The only thing I would say is that ultimately I don't think many people would disagree that even though what happened to Adelaide wasn't the right way for it to be resolved, shoemaker was the worthy champion that year, although Ben may disagree. No, no, no, I've been asked that question before and I do concede that over the balance of the season, shoemaker deserved it, but in the white heat of the decider, that outcome was unjust. And thank you for doing my job for me, Ed, because if I had long sleeves on, I'd be rolling them up, the start of that question. But I wanted to mention something we talked about on a episode we did on the Hill documentary that came out on Sky, where they showed more of Hill's on boards from that race and you see very clearly shoemaker basically, in my opinion, anyway, doing an unsafe rejoin from his original off. He comes swirving across the track onto the racing line, which I think is part of Hill's panic. He has to kind of react to that first and then he goes for the gap on the inside, which is then closed off as he described. So I think even under modern guidance, a stewardess could have done shoemaker on two basis, rather than just the one. Yeah, that's a good point. And I think also, if you look at the way shoemaker rejoins, because he comes back on, so as you say, potential unsafe rejoin, and he comes over to the left, and then he sort of has an initial move to the right as if he's thinking about it and then he goes. And I think that's another thing that might have been referenced in terms of trying to understand the intent and the reaction. So it's an interesting one. Now, because I think that the current stewarding rules might have led to something happening, doesn't mean that I think something should have happened at the time, because I think it was a just outcome in the broader scheme of things, but it's interesting to apply some of these tests to past incidents. But I think if you, the key thing is if you look at the onboard, the moment where there's the impact, there's no question that Hill is alongside the mirror, and that's all definitions of the intent of where the mirror is meant to be in the current regulations, allowing for changes in cars, et cetera. So I think it would be actually fairly clear cut from that regard. I'm with the Schumacher fan that posed a question on this. In this instance, because he was the better driver, and he knew he's a better driver, therefore he could do anything he wanted. And that's clearly how the rules should be around, based around Michael, and even, even if the other drivers in his mind. Even if the other drivers got his front wheel almost alongside his front wheel, let alone the wing mirror, which he did have, that's a relevant. He shouldn't even be there. He should not even think of being there. So that's my take on that. So I agree with the question. I'm not being goaded. So my takeaway here is unsafe rejoin and then causing a collision. So Michael Schumacher gets two, five second penalties, which he can't serve, because he's cars in the barriers. Three-place quick penalty for the next race. There we go, and he keeps his world championship. We've fixed it. The other part of the question I would pick up on is to say, as a Schumacher fan, I never got the uproar around the collision. I don't think it matters which side of the fence you're on, or even if you're not part of this sort of fence debate. You could be a neutral there, and you could see the uproar, because the two title contenders have collided, and the championship has been decided because they've collided that, that I think is where the uproar comes from, and it doesn't really matter how you feel about it. That is a controversial moment, even if you have no dog in the fight. Let's move on to our second question then from Rod Pinder, who says, "Do you think the changes to the qualifying rules in 2003 helped or hindered one Pablo Montoya's chance of a title that year? His seven pole positions in 2002 were incredible, and a highlight of the season. Williams was slow to adapt to the qualifying changes for '03, and often left their two heavily-fueled drivers, stuck mid-pack. Mark, you were covering F1 at the time. We've talked about one shot qualifying, and qualifying with your race start, fuel load, quite a lot in the past. If we'd kept the previous qualifying format, the one hour low fuel where Montoya excelled in 2002, does that change the way that season goes for him? Maybe it depends on whether we have the season played out relative to Michael Schumacher and Ferrari on the one hand, and Kimmy Reichen and McLaren on the other. They were both also in title contention, of course. Also, the 2002 qualifying performances sort of came at the expense of race performances and how that car was treating its tyres, and it was very good at getting them straight up the temperature and allowing Montoya to really hang it out, but it would typically then overwork the tyres and the race. That was one of the problems of the 2002 car, which the 2003 car did address, but yes, I take the point of the question. In the early part of the season, at least, they did do some questionable choices on fuel levels, and I think really it was as they recognised what everybody else was doing, it was no longer the best way to just do the theoretical optimum of fuel level if you just work it out on the maths. There's some game theory involved. You're going to have to react to what the others are doing because you're going to otherwise lose time to light a fuel opponents in the first stint. I think Williams were a little bit slow to pick up on that. And so without that, they might have had a better chance. But I think that more or less got that sort of by the time the car really began to work, sort of mid-season when it really started to come on song. They were pretty much on top of that by then. And that's when they started scoring heavy and then it was a little drop off at the end with a couple of incidents. But I think, no, I don't think they changed to pop firmer and race field qualifying. It would have been a decisive thing here. I can in struggle with that. Also, there were a couple of races where you just threw it off on a single lap in qualifying. So you know, that wouldn't have been the case with the 2002 rig. So I don't think that was the decisive reason why they lost the title. I think it was just, you know, external to that. I think you've picked up on something important there as well, which is that Williams didn't get the most out. Williams's 2003 car wasn't as good as it should have been at the start of the year. As you said, it took them away into the season to sort the car. So you couldn't purely say, if you changed the qualifying format, Montoya leaps forward on the grid and everything's rosy, that that Williams car wasn't as good as it would be by mid season at the beginning. So whenever we debate if the event late in 2003, as we did at the start of this season, whenever we debate, if that was the decisive factor, you do have to look at the fact that Williams underperformed and left points on the table themselves early in the year. Next question then is from Robert Charlton. Ben, you can take this one. It's about 1996, but not necessarily the bit of 1996 you like talking about, but Robert says Australia 96 Michael Schumacher starts his first race for McLaren Mercedes alongside Mick Ackinan. How does the Michael, Micka, Ron Dennis partnership go and how does this change the V10 era for McLaren and Ferrari? Ah, interesting. So this picks up on our kind of Peugeot McLaren 94 nightmare and Ron declaring having signed Mercedes that he's building a super team for Michael to come to and he's actually come to it. I think you'd be very unhappy on the Melbourne grid to 96 at the performance of the car. I can't decide whether he embarrasses Hacking in a bit in that first season and Hacking and just coming back from his injury, not feeling fully confident, being out of contract at the end of that year just decides, you know what, Ron's moved on from me, I need to get out and then you kind of have this situation of hill and call thread continuing at Williams for a bit longer and then McLaren needs to sign somebody else to know somebody's subservient basically to race alongside Michael or whether Hacking in gets his Mojo back to use a well-worn phrase a bit quicker and sort of spooks Michael a bit with his speed, you know, in a kind of Sena 93 type, we're just in a few races and that becomes a difficult situation for McLaren to manage, Hacking and sticks it out and then you have kind of 98 and 99 as kind of two mega seasons where two top drivers duke it out within the same team. I can't decide but I feel like if Schumacher ends up on top and takes those Hacking and titles in 98, 99 maybe even extends it through to 2000 and 01 eventually the kind of dynamics that McLaren with Ron and Newi and the committee decision making and the undermining of Newi and the Mercedes unreliability etc that undid them as the 2000s developed eventually that's annoying Michael isn't it and he doesn't, I don't think he stays at McLaren as long as he stays at Ferrari. Just to draw on a slightly different part of the question it refers how it changes the V10 era for McLaren and Ferrari. Now Ferrari, I think there's a fair chance of Schumacher's not at Ferrari in 96, I'm not sure John Todd survives, I think he may get sacked because you'll have lesser drivers trying to make something out of the 310 Ferrari Barnard Ancher and hardly anyone would have dragged the results that he could have done out of that perhaps nobody, probably nobody in fact. So I suspect that even though they've been a reasonable ramp up over the previous few years they might have said oh this isn't working we need a new leader this is Ferrari after all whereas I think the respectability that Schumacher brought with those three wins in in 1996 in what was a pretty bad season you know you had engine failures on formation laps you had drive shafts popping out of the car that kind of thing pretty embarrassing so if you eliminate that face saving role of Schumacher I think they might just say right Todd you're not the guy what a mistake that would have been. Yeah I think also to pick up on Ben's point Schumacher would not have become so central to McLaren in the way that he did it Ferrari it just wasn't that sort of team run didn't run the team in that way where somebody was allowed such a dominant position to have everything revolving around him now obviously he's and I just a phenomenal performer regardless but that that was definitely part of what made him so great at Ferrari that he got everything absolutely as he needed it which he wouldn't have done to the same extent at McLaren especially with Mickra alongside him and I think although Michael was absolutely brilliant in that 96 clarm chair Ferrari which was super super pitch sensitive where you just you know you just needed to sort of suggest that you're turning the wheel and it would be oversteering and Michael was able to contain that brilliantly. The McLaren wasn't like that it was if anything a fairly unresponsive car and it took a while for the for the arrow understanding to evolve to a point where it was it had a pretty reasonably balanced car buy out of 97 so I think he wouldn't have shone in quite the same way in that car as he did in the 96 Ferrari he wouldn't have got more than would have seemed reasonable from it in the same way but it obviously still would have been absolutely mighty but there would have been days I'm sure where Mickra would have been quicker not every time but enough to even maybe on settle Michael a little bit and I think Mickra would probably have once he'd seen that happening I think he would probably have quite enjoyed that situation just not making a first just quietly going about some days being quicker than Michael and just getting under his skin so I think it would have been quite quite interesting but over the long term yeah Michael is the more committed harder work and guy would probably have prevailed and probably would have been the one that had it come to it Ron would have had to have backed one or the other it would have probably ended up being Michael but I don't think initially there would have been that much difference between them. The other thing I wonder apart from Autocratic Ron Dennis McLaren and that creating tension maybe this combustible Hacker and Schemaca partnership is what happens to Benaton because there's that whole kind of brain drain at Benaton and the coalescing of some key people from Schemaca's two first world championships to Ferrari and the super team does that team get ever get made does Benaton actually remain a bit stronger and okay they don't have the same driver to build around but do they find somebody else to coalesce around there isn't John Lacey and Tide you know past his best Gerhard Berger that's that's a kind of another fascinating what if in that whole scenario yeah that's a good point you trying to the the problem was that there weren't that many talents the field wasn't that deep at that point wasn't the other thing that occurred to me if Schemaca is it what about Trackville? No, he's busy winning world championships at Williams. The other thing that occurred to me though is if Schemaca's at McLaren in 96 presumably Moul Brust days at McLaren through the rest of the 90s because Moul Bramay that decision I believe in 1996 and it was to throw all of their commercial might behind the Michael Schemaca's John Top Ferrari Empire that was being built in Marinello so if Ferrari are a shambles who've just sacked John Top in Ed's universe and I can totally see that happening I think 96 is a disaster without Schemaca dragging the armchair around then Moul Bram necessarily going to see the appeal of of ditching McLaren or maybe Ferrari do do well because John Top's looking around for driver options and think there's nothing we can do but call for Nigel Mansl bring him back to Ferrari imagine how that might have gone he would have needed an armchair that's for sure maybe that's why it's so wide early only returns of course Marriam Dretty would tell you that around this time Ferrari was still interested in Michael and Dretty I think Marriam's may have even told you Ed that he thought Michael had an offer for 95 so maybe Ferrari don't think they're getting maybe they don't think they get in Michael Schemaca they get a different Michael instead but let's move on we're in the wild and wacky weeds of this hypothetical universe now let's move on to a question from Jack eight kin Ed are we still obliged to say no not that one this day I actually feel like our Jack eight kin is the the better known one now I think now we have to say on every third mention every third appearance just to remind people in case people think it's the one time Williams driver good to know well we won't do it this time then but anyway Jack's question is Mark Weber passed up a Renault drive for 2005 in favor of the more [BLANK_AUDIO] prestigious Williams seat? Can you see Weber's career taking a different trajectory if he driven for a championship winning team earlier in his career? Mark, what do you think? Yes, I don't think he passed it up because Williams was more prestigious, though he passed it up because Fernando Alonso was there and he held Alonso in such high regard. He didn't fancy going ahead-to-head alongside Alonso and a team in which Alonso was already established. So that was his reasoning, but how would he have fed? I think he would have fed very well, probably better than the Jonathan Trillian, Giancalfus Ekele. I don't see him coming out on top against Fernando, but I see him giving him a harder time over the course of a season than Alonso's two teammates during that time. So I think he would have scored Grand Prix wins earlier. He would have been outside championship contender earlier, but he ultimately got to about the same place that he did get. He probably just got there a little bit earlier, I think. I felt similarly that he probably wins earlier, but just gets the Sebastian Vettel lesson a bit sooner in his career. That's what it sounds like. He had his Red Bull career sooner. Yeah, exactly. But I do remember reading an interview with him in F1 Racing a few years ago where he admitted going to Williams was a mistake in that his heart ruled his head. He kind of thought that he could have the whole kind of Alan Jones thing again. And actually, he should have just stuck with Renault and gone up against Fernando, even if he would have got found out a bit sooner. I suspect, while pretty much agreeing with what Mark said, I suspect Weber might be seen as slightly better performer relative to Alonso than he was seen as a performer relative to Vettel because of the changing and the rules and that kind of thing. I think he was a bit better suited to the kind of cars that he had in the mid 2000s, rather than what we had in the early 2010s. So maybe that would have enhanced his reputation a little bit more. Perhaps he'd have had that little bit more success than he did in the Red Bull days if you're trying to compare like for like, although I don't think it would have translated to sort of 10 times the wins and multiple championships. Ed, question for you next, this one had to be for you. It's from Nick Surface, who says, "Do you think the Prost-Purjo collapse was more down to Prost or Purjo? I think Alan Prost simply did not have the same ruthless determination to win as Frank Williams or Ron Dennis, nor the corporate connections that Jackie Stewart had with Ford and HSBC. Ed, you get to talk French, not so super team. Absolutely, my favourite topic. I think tackling the question the biggest, if you're comparing the contribution of Prost and Purjo, you probably do have to go a little bit more to Alan Prost. I don't agree. He didn't have the determination, but I think he didn't have the same skill set as a team boss that Frank Williams had all the same prevailing conditions because obviously, yeah, Purjo was a letdown. I think Prost thrived when he felt everyone was pulling in his direction and going with him. He felt that it was logical that as a French super team with him leading it, you'd have a fully committed Purjo. Of all the French companies coming in, obviously, the financing of the team wasn't perfect. There were peripheral problems like the cut back on tobacco sponsorship and that kind of thing that made life difficult for that team in the '90s as well and he just didn't have the wider support he wanted. So there were myriad factors really. Obviously, there's all the politics always surrounding that team with the government involvement sometimes in trying to encourage companies. But I don't think Prost was the person to galvanise people and kind of force them all into working together the right way, which I think certain other people had a better skill set as Prost was great and I think he could have been great as a team boss. If he just happened to draw together a bunch of people who are all of the same mind and all the same pages as him from the start, whereas I don't think he was so good at forcing everyone onto the same page as well. That said, I think it was a pretty tough ask for anyone. So while the French super team is such a persistent and alluring and exciting and this will really work, trope in the bring about V10-0, perhaps it was always doing. But unfortunately, I think I have to go slightly more with Prost. But within the context of I think that was a pretty tough set of circumstances and you need an extreme personality with precisely the right team boss skill set to do that. And ultimately, Alan Prost was a great rating driver, one of the all time greats. That doesn't necessarily translate in football. A great player isn't necessarily a great coach. So very, very different skill sets. And I think probably just the assumptions that underpin the way Prost worked didn't apply to all of those around him and he wasn't able to force that culture and that mindset on everybody around him as well. The thing about a great driver, not making a great manager and it's weird, isn't it? You can't imagine anyone doing this now. We had Alan Prost and Jackie Stewart in charge of F1 teams carrying their own name. I can't imagine that happening today. I think you talked about the difficult circumstances that I've researched this way more than I probably should have. Just just in general, whenever we do a late 90s or early 2000s thing and there's demise of Prost type stuff coming up. So I've seen a lot of interviews Alan's given about this. I get the impression. I think we've covered the Lijane 92 stuff that he wanted to do. I think then as a driver, he was looking for a fresh challenge of can I be kind of to continue your football analogy and play a manager of a team? And I think he genuinely wanted to do it then and I get the impression that by the time it actually came around, he was less up for the idea but was facing quite a lot of pressure to do it and it was pressured by a lot of companies involved, the French government. At least that's the impression he gives now. So he was maybe more of a reluctant participant by the time he actually got around to running the team. The other thing I've seen him complain about is that running a team from France was apparently very expensive around French employment law and all those sort of things. I've seen a quote somewhere where he said he once compared his running costs with Ron Dennis at McLaren and I'm sure Prost said something like running Prost Grand Prix from France as a smaller team than McLaren was more expensive. I think particularly just the wage bill was more expensive than McLaren which had loads more staff at that point. So Prost was there going how on earth can we compete when all of the money is going into the way you have to pay your staff in France I assume. The other thing he always cites, he calls it the internet crisis. I think it's often called the dot com bubble bursting. Obviously they had a lot of sponsors on the car around 99 2000 time. I had Yahoo on the side of the car in 2000 and then the dot com bubble burst and Prost says that's why he lost a lot of his sponsors. So yeah just utterly doomed venture sadly. You mentioned the reluctance participant I think is the phrase he used and maybe that's the element in the question about him lacking the determination. Watching the Prost documentary we covered recently, you've got a sense as brilliant as Prost was that repeatedly if he didn't like the atmosphere in the team he was with and he felt that there were elements working against him. He didn't have that kind of resolve to turn it around. He was much more kind of I need to get away from this. I need to find a new home a different place to go and of course if you're then the team boss with the ultimate state there's kind of nowhere to go. He's a bit like almost the the Toto Wolf at modern Mercedes trapped on the hamster wheel is how Toto described it and you get the sense that I want to get off that I can't. I do wonder if the best possible outcome for the French sleeper team is if Persia which was a weakness as well. If Persia had been fully committed and doing well etc. You'd probably get to a point after a few years where Persia wanted to buy the team because we were getting into a manufacturer here or weren't we. So maybe that that was if Persia was different perhaps it could have worked well enough for long enough for that to happen and then we'd be saying well Prost did a Jackie Stewart he started the team all great value made load of money off it ran it for three years one a race and isn't that brilliant so perhaps that was where the Persia part of the recipe let let him down a little bit but still I think you've got to buy it slightly more to Prost himself he probably wasn't the guy to juggle these ridiculously difficult set of parameters. Yeah one of the core skills of a team boss is inspiring people and I don't think he was able to do that as said earlier he flourishes when he feels everyone's behind him but you can't do it from behind you know you got to you got to lead from the front and I don't think that was in Prost character he wasn't someone that would inspire he wasn't that sort of you know extrovert character or don't have to be extrovert or but it's somebody that everybody immediately gets behind and wants to help and wants to make things happen for them he just wasn't that sort of person really so I think yeah it was a little bit of a miscarison isn't it he lacked charisma yeah I think so and I think also I think talking to English people who did work at that team this day it was a very very difficult place to be culturally and it was you know there was it was almost run by the workshop that the team was almost run by the workshop and quite a, you know, and aggressive way almost and so the dynamics of that whole thing were just always wrong in my opinion. And also there's there's talk of occasions when Frost would sort of agree to something and say make it work and he'd go off someone else would say oh no we can't do that because of this and then he'd think oh okay and so there are a lot of different groups thinking oh well you said you do this you're not and so he wasn't great at balancing all of those different all those different competing challenges because obviously that just creates a scenario where there's politics at play as well within the team so he wasn't a master at juggling that and to be fair not many people are I will say thanks Ben you're in the first half of this episode you managed to plug out too much research or two of our most recent film club episodes in the race members club you mentioned the Hill documentary which we had a chat about a while back and the prost documentary so if you're listening to this in our main feed you're wondering what Ben's talking about when he said this episode we did about this we're doing many more episodes about most sport and Formula One. Films and documentaries now in the members club they're really good fun to do and yet we very recently done ones on the Hill and prost documentaries so another reason to come and check out the members club let's move on to a question from Daniel Hayes who says in the Brazil 2004 episode there's talk about how much of an advantage Ferrari had by being able to test at their two private test tracks how come this advantage didn't help them in most of the V10's V10 era. Until Jean-Totte Ross-Brawn and Michael Schumacher were in situ Mark why weren't Ferrari able to make this advantage pay before the mid 90's when everything started to come together. Well you have to look at the other factors around it did they have the material there to absolutely be able to take it and advantage of it and you might argue well they were taking advantage of it and that was the performance they got when they were taking advantage of it and if they hadn't had that there would have been even worse. No I tend to favour that. I do I tend to favour that. The ability to do extensive testing was helping them would probably have helped them more of the tight someone a bit more technically switched on than John Lacey as their lead driver but I think it was still still a help the problems with Ferrari prior to the arrival of the super team which more deep rooted than. I like that summary just so the answer to that question is imagine how bad they would be without all the testing they were able to do on the doorstep okay next question is from John who says out of all the seasons in the V10 era which team do you think that had a windless season could or should have won a race that year and John is done that great thing that I know when people do this where they offer their own suggestions as well because usually those suggestions are quite good and I think this one is Ben John's suggestion is. Benaton in 1996 where Gerhard Berger was cruelly robbed in Germany and John Lacey possibly threw away a win at Monza I'll add to the Lacey one that obviously once Damon Hill's engine had blown up sorry Ben there was a chance that Lacey could have won Monaco as well yeah yeah I think 96 Benaton definitely they weren't quite they weren't yet into full shambles mode where they and post Michael Schumacher decline so definitely they were missed opportunities down I remember people at Benaton feeling a Lacey. You know it was a bit he let the opportunity slip by going to sleep in races and whatnot I think some of the obvious other contenders obviously you've got the you know the the 1990 late in the house French Grand Prix we did in our heart breaks episode which I'm not sure is it out yet but certainly will be I think by the time people see and listen to this it will be out so check that out obviously the 1997 arrows Yamaha should have won the Hungarian Grand Prix that's a that's a given. You could make an argument for Williams in 1999 and Raus Schumacher in a in contention to win the heartbreak heartbreak race the European Grand Prix in the nerve agreeing and I always felt even though I can't pick a specific race from this season that in 2004 Jensen button should have run a race in the B.A.R. Honda just felt like he was always there the next guy and waiting it just didn't come together that feels like the more traditional sense of answering the question where it's like a really good team you have. I had a really good season but somehow didn't win I think you're right to with B.A.R. to not necessarily say there's obvious races they left on the table but it does feel like a season that shouldn't have been winless really interested in your approach beyond that where you've actually just you've picked moments for maybe underdogs who I wouldn't have necessarily said shoot I guess you've gone for the could have rather than the should have a close yeah your hand shot up as I was asking the question so obviously you have lots of important things. To say on this as well always yeah I just had a slightly different tack on it I thought seeing as Ben was doing the the main answer I just have a look at the numbers because sometimes that's interesting we're doing a lot of super times which is based on fastest single lap it's just a way comparing and the fastest car in terms of deficit from the deficit of the best non winning car in the season the B.A.R. is the strongest which is just under half a percent off on average. Interestingly the second best car is the Toyota in 2005 which is smidgen under 0.8% off those are the only two cars that are under the 1% average deficit pace off which is just interesting it's I'd kind of agree that you have to look at probably the ones that should have won with the ones that had occasions when they're really strong rather than occasions when you had seasons when a car was quite strong but never quite the best but it's just an interesting way of looking at it and obviously gaps generally have got tighter over the years so inevitably you're going to have something from the mid 2000s rather than say 1990 in terms of those numbers but it's just another way of looking at it. Yeah I think those 2004 numbers under cell Ferraris superiority because Michelin had a better qualifying tire than Bridgestone Ferrari was on the Bridgestone so he didn't see the Ferrari at its best in qualifying and even then it's half a half percent clear of the second fastest car in race pace it would be greater than I'm sure. The other one I'd like to add to the list because I was standing on the inside is still corner timing the gap and it was coming down quite dramatically between the leader and Prost and Ivanka Pele in the late house so that was another late house to pick up on the early one that Ben mentioned in France Silverstone Silverstone 1990. It's quite a good point about 2004 because if you watch their races where it looked like they are were in a position to win because things are gone wrong for Ferrari but then the Ferrari pace was so monstrously advantageous and there's a difference in qualifying and race pace I'd also like to throw the Jordan 197 in actually as well Gary Anderson reckons that if Barrakello stayed he'd have won in that car with his experience as well he built up so another honorable mention. I want to pick up when you're thinking about the super times and I'm not going to make you do this on the episode but if there's anything good we can put it in our bring back v10s communities the various communities we have because obviously the pace spread in the early years of the 10 era was so big that yeah if you do it by percentage the gaps get way too big but I'd be curious about just the order of based on super times we're like who were the highest teams in the order they may have been 2% off of say you know an a Williams FW 14 big. Be or something but if you had the you know third or fourth fastest car that year just just who were the best who were the highest ranked teams rather than based on the pure pure percentage yeah certainly B.A.R. come out one and that because they were the second fastest on that metric in 2004 to 9 1 but so I can I can draw something up and chuck it into the community that's a coincide with this episode coming out sounds good let's move on great question that one but the next one's from Bart Stratford Hall who said how would the v10 seasons have played out? differently if at all with the refueling rules reversed so that it was permitted between 1989 and 1993 and then banned from 94 onwards a Bart says would that have potentially reduced prosts and increased sinners chances in the first part of the era and then potentially reduced Schumacher's advantage over the others there after mark let's start with the prosts and center stuff if we have refueling sprint races effectively in the first part of the era as Bart says does that work against Alan Prost? Absolutely yeah that's that's perfect territory for center first use. center could drive the car faster simple as that and Prost had to you know work is work is way around that yeah now that that's a brilliant question and it absolutely would have resulted in that in that first part. yeah going on to the second part I think Michael dominates regardless because him and the team were just such a unit to go to Ross Brown they are directing the whole thing I think they would have they would have still been the dominant force but certainly the sprint the mini sprint format of Grand Prix certainly suited Schumacher brilliantly well and but I think he would have prevailed regardless. There's also a really interesting question to slightly expand question because if refueling is allowed in 89 presumably it wasn't banned a few years earlier so. That as the turbo here advanced you have had this key parameter change and just fascinating to imagine how that might have affected the way things play. out in terms of that air and the development of the engines, it would have made no sense to have tried to restrict the power as the years went on through fuel limits with it if you've got refueling. So that doesn't happen and so you don't get these races necessarily where people are running out of fuel, although you might get people running out of fuel for different reasons because they can't calculate it precisely enough. So it's a really interesting example of when you change one parameter, how much that can impact and influence absolutely everything that happens because to take the premise of that question, I feel like you've got to rewrite the previous few years as well. So that's a really interesting question. What could it have meant for sending in the Lotus Renault if they could have been a bit more profligate with fuel, obviously, are carrying around a lot of weight, et cetera, and you'd lose time stopping, et cetera, but could that have made that more competitive and how would that have changed the way you develop those engines and those cars? So it's an endless talking point. I go on about it for hours, but I can see Glenn would not appreciate that. Yeah, I'm going to cut you off and just say that when when they banned turbos for 1988, they also went every fuelings back and then they only kept it for five years and then they changed their mind again, which is the sort of thing everyone would do today, I think, where we have to change the rules seemingly every three or four years. At the moment, next question is from Andrew Izagiri, who says, "Of all the first time winners in the V10 era, which race would you watch if every time you watched it, it would be the first time you watched it?" Great, great question. We can all have a go at this. Ben, you can go first. Oh, it's really difficult to choose because I've got visceral memories of watching the taked 1995 Canadian Grand Prix, where John and Lacey took his first win, and even though it wasn't a great race, just that whole ambiance and what it meant emotionally was quite powerful and sticks in my mind, but then also 1996 Monaco Grand Prix, even though I was gutted that Damon Hill didn't win it such a crazy race and had such an unexpected winner, I think I'd probably have to pick that one, even though it goes against my Damon Hill supporting instincts, it was just such a mad race that I could easily watch that again for the first time. Mark, what have you got? I think I would go for Rio 1989 and Mansell's win on his debut with Ferrari because just the tension of that car was always going to break down and we were just expecting it was going to, you know, he infamously booked his return flight, you know, before the end of the race. And there's nobody seriously, it couldn't string more than 10 laps together in pre-season, so obviously it was going to break down and here it was in the lead, and this is an incredible achievement, just sort of, you're just hanging in the balance and every lap it went on, it ratcheted tension up even more, so yeah, I'd look to be able to witness that for the first time again. Great choices so far, come on Ed, you've got a lot to live up to here. I admire Mark's precise interpretation of the questions to have Mansell's the first time winning because I didn't count him, but the wording actually allows it, so hats off to you. Well, I'd probably go taking the question in the spirit in which it's asked, which I think is just in terms of the first time race winner that you enjoyed and you want to go back up, probably Schumacher's first win. Sparring 92, obviously it was very clear, Schumacher was a mega talent, Beneton was kind of the underdog team, so that one I really, really enjoyed. You could also throw in, say, a Zazoo Karate 9, which is slightly cheating because although I like Nenini, that's less about Nenini winning and more just about the chance to endlessly watch the collision happening, as if it's the first time you've seen it and having the reaction. I like it. I think that's slightly outside of the spirit to the question, which is why I decided to offer two answers. I've got an answer as well. See if you can see what I'm doing here. Mika Hackenon's first win. I basically want to watch the 1907 European Grand Prix over and over again, as if I've never seen it before, although at the time as a Villeneuve fan, it was agony because much like Mark was saying, you know, you're waiting for Nigel Manson's car to break down at Rio in 89, after Villeneuve had been driven into and suddenly went very slowly in the final part of that race, I was assuming that he was about to break down as well. And we've subsequently heard, you know, the battery was hanging on by its connectors. So yeah, maybe I shouldn't put myself through that stress over and over again. If I may throw in a fire option just as a slightly personal story, I'd also throw in Silverstone 95 for Herbett's first win. And that's because that's a race I did not see live. And in fact, it's a race I was actually in France on the orchestral tour, would you believe. And I remember being on the bus and there was the French radio was on. And I picked out in terms of the sports news. You could hear that they were reading out the results and they said, you could hear a Renault engine car had won. But they read out the results and I made out the fact they said, Hill and Schumacher collided. And with work, I thought, well, that means Herbett won. But I hadn't actually said them say Johnny Herbert. So it's caught a long period of time because obviously Johnny Herbert, he was the terrible accident. So he was a great underdog story as well. So for him to finally got with was a big story. So I feel that being able to watch it, not knowing what's going to happen and experience that would have replaced something I didn't get to have at the time because I had this slightly strange, oh, did that actually happen? And it took a while for me to confirm it in the days before the wider producer of internet. Yeah, I mean, the question wasn't which orchestral tour would you go back on again if you could experience it for the first time every time. But let's move on to a question from Andrew. Ed, another special one for you here. This is what was the flakeiest manufacturer of the era. Andrew has offered his own suggestions as well, interestingly, saying Honda, Renault and Perso are the top three that come to my mind despite what two of them achieved at various points. Ed, would that be your top three? Well, they're all worthy considerations, but I decided to go for the flakeiest of them all, which was Subaru. Now, brilliant. Not well remembered, but it brought a majority share, 51% I think of of Colony in 1999, 1990 rather, and said, okay, we're going to take over this team and it's going to be our our works team. They had a V12 engine, I think in the works that never saw a light today. That is flat 12 engine, a color ketic design, which was a mentoring midernie who had supplied Minardi in the past as well. So they hastily threw this all together and got it out there. It was absolutely terrible, never pre-qualified. I think it was eight races before Subaru thought this isn't a very good idea. We're pulling out. So I think this was the flakeiest one because it was so short-lived, it was so half-baked, it was so under-committed that it was just a footnote that I imagine that even some pretty engaged bring back V10 listeners when I said Subaru. I've gone what? Because you just don't think of it. So I had to go with Subaru, but maybe others will have more mainstream suggestions. You probably put Yamaha in there as well, but it wasn't quite as flakey as Subaru. I mean, I can't argue with it. The logic of Ed's suggestion is overwhelming. Yeah, okay, I'll be controversial, say Ferrari. They should have achieved a lot more before the arrival of Schumacher and Totten Braun, given the facilities they had. So yeah, had to go there. Wasn't expecting that. I don't think the one suggested it a question, but I think the best suggestion because they had a good engine at the point they started to lose interest, which just makes it doubly frustrating. Next question is from Sabrina, who says, "How do you think Ralph Schumacher's F1 career would have gone in a world without Michael Schumacher?" Ben, what do you think? Yeah, interesting question, because if you try to strip out the Michael shadow from that whole thing, you think, "Well, yeah, Ralph had a really good starting karting, family kart track to kick things off on, good junior, single-seater record, decent informer three, formerly Nippon deserves to be an F1, get his break in a midfield team, does a right, but drives into his teammate a bit too much, goes to Williams, but they're on the way. Well, the key is does he end up going to Williams? Because that's when Michael steps in right, you have Spa 98 and relations breaking down and Schumacher senior helping buy out the contract. So that's the sort of inflection point, I can't quite decide what happens, but I do wonder if without Michael there kind of has a sort of high-tired French and tight career, and effectively their career is invert and French and is at Williams a bit longer and Ralph is at Jordan a bit longer and then his career just kind of peeters out, maybe, maybe windless even. I do wonder whether it ever happens, and that's not to subscribe to the view that Ralph Schumacher purely got there because of his brother, but because he was a very quick driver and I will try and defend those who will write off Ralph Schumacher as a terrible driver. He was a very good driver in his day, very, very, very quick. Ask Monterey about how quick Ralph Schumacher was, so it wasn't that he didn't merit a place in F1, but I wonder if the opportunities would have come his way to show what he did later in his junior formula career as well, if there wasn't the Schumacher connections there as well. And I don't want to say that as a criticism because I think any driver to get their opportunity needs to take advantage of whatever benefits they've got around them, and Ralph absolutely doesn't have this place in Formula One, but does he get there without without Michael Schumacher's role in involvement and just sort of the gravity of that as well? I'm not completely sure. He could have done because the ability wasn't the problem, but the opportunity surely would have been reduced. Yeah, I concur, I think that's realistically how it would have been I think he followed, he walked through doors of Michael opened, basically, that Michael's success opened. And that, as I say, that's not to be disrespectful, but it did have opportunities that probably wouldn't have been there, had Michael not sort of knocked the walls down beforehand. I suppose the thing to wonder, though, is if in this imagined universe where Michael just doesn't exist, is Ralph a bigger deal, because Michael doesn't exist, and therefore does that help him a little bit, or does it help him to any degree more than Michael did by just being who Michael was? I think if you just take the career trajectory as is and just imagine Michael's not there, rather than wonder how much he might have been able to stand on his own two feet more without Michael there, or couldn't without Michael being there to help him, I don't see him having the career he had at Williams as one toys teammate and winning a few races, like maybe he snatches one opportunistic one somewhere, but I can see him being an F1 driver without being a winning F1 driver. Yeah, it comes down to what cars does he get into in junior categories, and does that lead to further opportunities, because you have to count all the way back in terms of that sort of thing. So, it's fundamentally a question of does he get the opportunity to show how good he could become and to develop, which is what I think she might, Michael, she might as existence played a part in facilitating which stress is not criticism, because everybody has to take advantage of whatever opportunity they can, and it's not like he was a no-hoper who only got there because of his name, that's not how it worked, but it's, yeah, you can kind of spin it back endlessly, can't you, in terms of what might have been, and it's a reminder that there's probably quite a few good drivers out there who could win six Grand Prix, who we have never heard of, because they never had the opportunity to develop those talents and sharpen those skills, maybe never even sat in a race car. All of those people are sat on this podcast right now, to simplify the question. If Ralph has the career he had, and Michael didn't exist, and Ralph notches up the number of wins he had, and all that sort of stuff, I do think the perception of what he did is slightly better, because as much as we've tried to say that we're not, we're not being disrespectful when we say it probably helped his route to F1 being a shoemaker, I also think he meant he was held to a higher standard than drivers of a similar level, and probably some of his achievements weren't considered as impressive, because you're just the second best person in your family doing this. Next question from Michael Horner, who says, "What if David Coolford had better luck at the start of 2003?" Michael goes on to say, "DC wins the opening race in Australia, Malaysia he's running ahead of Kimi in second, but the usual McLaren breaks down on him, and Kimi wins. Then in Brazil, DC is on course to win until it's red flagged after he's pitted, with the others still needing to pit." "Did Fisi Kellen need to pit again?" I suppose maybe he did. So in a more fortunate parallel dimension, DC has three wins from three starts. That's the point we'll take here. Does Ron Dennis finally stop seeing him as simply the other driver? Does this lead to a world championship given the momentum he has? There you go, Mark. David Coolford has won the first three races of the 2003 season. Does that transform the rest of his year? It certainly obliges McLaren to get right behind him, doesn't it, which is very interesting question, but would you have been able to sustain that level of performance? I'd argue probably not. He was definitely the second quickest McLaren driver that year, and there were some special performances coming up from Kimi, and not to mention the juggernaut of Schumacher and Ferrari, so I think, yeah, he probably won the first three races, he would have been able to retain that lead probably for quite a long way into the season, but I doubt whether it could have been continued to keep that momentum to the non-extension. It wasn't a particularly quick car, it was okay, it was the previous year's car, which had managed to massage into a reasonable competitive shape, but it wouldn't have been done on raw performance, so I don't think it would have been that sustainable. Just to throw in the detail on Fisicalla, he would have had to pay if the race ran the distance, because the strategy that Gary Anderson has talked about coming up with was predicated on putting Fisicalla in a position where he could be well up the order before having to pay at a point where there's a chance of a red flag and still having the result declared, so that creates a window, but if it runs to the end, he would have had to stop. Andy Goulding is next saying, "What are your thoughts on the inconsistency and lack of distinctive helmet designs since the V10 era?" I don't normally go down the route, Ed, of allowing us to bash the present, that's not really what we're here for, so it's more a case of using this question to celebrate how distinctive helmet designs were in this era. I remember on the BBV10's Instagram page once, I found a picture that I posted, it was all of the 2005 crash helmets were laid out on some concrete somewhere, I think it was at the Nürburgring and they were all put together, really neatly, and even at that point, so even at the end of the era, when the helmet designs are getting a bit more jazzy, you can still see from any angle, you can work out who everyone's helmet is, I try not to use this phrase on the show, but that was better back then, wasn't it? Well, I couldn't answer this by taking on a journey of my own evolving rules, evolving rules, evolving views even, and yeah, certainly, I love the more simple times, not the most simple times, but in the 80s and 90s we had these really clear helmet designs, quite simple striking schemes, instantly recognizable, you know, they had the hill helmet, the London Rowing Club colours, Alex Kaffee's helmet, I've talked about before the red with the gold cross loads of drivers had really clear ones, and I like that. Now, what's interesting is there was a point where F1 tried to ban helmet design changes or other limits, so from 2015 to 2019, you're only allowed one change in a season, and I was at the time I was pro this, and I think I may have even written a column for autosport arguing for it at one stage, and actually it was a bit rubbish, and what I came to realise is the problem fundamentally is, although there is a force at work in terms of how much more elaborately they can be painted in terms of the techniques, etc, which is what you kind of alluded to, and they were getting more complicated in the era you talked about. But also, you can't really see the helmets very clearly now anymore, anyway, that you've got the halo, the high cockpit sides, the drivers are really cocooned, so my problem actually is just by necessity for safety reasons, you can't see them as clearly, so I've kind of evolved a little bit to the point where I appreciate why the drivers like doing what they're doing. Now, they have lots of different changes, and they can stamp some personality on it. The only problem is, you can only really appreciate most of those designs if you go right up to the helmet and look at it, or look at a really close up photo, which not many, certainly not many people can go and look at them up close, obviously we can do sometimes, and it's a great expression of individuality and ideas and that kind of thing, so it's a nice canvas for them to paint on, but I think it all follows from the way the cars are that you kind of can't have it. I'm a little bit unnerved when people change their fundamental colour scheme, because you want a sort of associate, all right, if there's a yellow helmet in that car, that means it's driver X rather than driver Y, so I'm not a huge fan of changes, but also changes happened way back before, think of Michael Schumacher at a profound change in his helmet design as well. So, yeah, it was better back then from that perspective, but I think the reason is not that drivers are inconsistent and don't have distinctive designs, it's just that you can't see them as clearly, fundamentally, and it becomes something, it films a different manifestation of it. There has to be almost appreciated more as a work of art, if you like. So perhaps it's a slightly colder way of looking at it, but it's just the nature of the beast now, I think. I'm glad you mentioned the visibility aspect, because I think that's a big chunk of it, maybe 50% of it is just the changing of the cars through the era, it's not just the halo now, but just everything, the cars getting bigger, the cockpit's going higher, even during the V10 era, things got harder to see than they used to be when you think of the early '90s and drivers always hanging out of the car, and I think, but I do think the other main key thing is just the fact that the dam was burst in terms of people being able to change their helmets, and I think that never used to be a thing, it was like pick a design and stick with it, and then there was a little bit of commercialisation of the driver's helmets, but then drivers just chopping and changing all the time, then if one trying to rein that back in, but drivers, once they've done it, now it just becomes a thing that they still tried to do, even some Louis Hamilton, who has had quite distinctive helmet designs, has chopped and changed even when he didn't need to, and so I just think you've lost that tether between a guy comes in with his nationalistic or favourite colours and just sticks with them, I mean even Schumacher you mentioned, nobody liked that, I didn't like the fact that he changed it, but it's almost an inevitability now that drivers will just do what suits the circumstances, certainly the commercial circumstances, and I feel like now actually the number has become the recognisable thing hasn't it, you assign numbers rather than have them changed based on the championship results, which is another contentious topic, but now that's what you associate with a particular driver rather than a particular helmet design. Yeah, I'm glad Ed's not as angry about the whole issue as he was, and he's milled a little bit. I'd like to go a step further than that and say, I don't really care, I liked it when you could instantly recognise it, but I didn't really notice when you couldn't, I think this probably, and I did like running our news approach to helmet design, which was just plain white, nothing on it at all, which just sort of said, I'm just here to race, I'm not bothered. I did quite like that, so maybe on a bit there, what's the word perverse? Vettel did that too, didn't he? I feel like when he went to Ferrari, finally, he went stripped back. It was plain white with just kind of German striped down it to begin with, wasn't it? Yeah, a bit more intricate stuff, but within it was like gray on white lining and that sort of thing. It was cool, it was cool to see, I always, when we knew Vettel was way outside the year and now, but when we knew Vettel was leaving, one of my first thoughts was, what's he going to do if he can't have the rebel design? And of course, Vettel really was the pioneer of the changing the designs all the time. The one thing he did, though, is he kept them kind of, they were a family of helmet designs and he just changed the colours and the designs, but yeah, the court was out of the bottle by that point. Lots more questions to get through, let's go on, Ed. I think it's worth noting as well that if you were to speak to a young driver today, let's say a 12 year old carter who has the chance to paint his helmet as to choose his colours, they'd have a completely different view of that process than say a young driver in 1990, because then it's intrinsic to the driver's brand. Now it's something different, it's a manifestation of something else, I think, even though I've seen karting, it's more, it's completely visible, but it's not quite the same. So I think people of a certain age, as most of us are, would have a completely different view to a young driver in that regard. They have different ways of manifesting that. And of course, the days when it was absolutely essential to the driver's brand, the days when cool thought and hacking it would turn down a million pound offer from Ron Dennis to get rid of the helmet designs to have sponsorship or whatever or team idea on it, that probably wouldn't happen in the same way now. And in fact, doesn't, as you said, from the Red Bull example. Yeah, so in summary, we're all old. Next question from Chris Parrot, who says, let's say Ferrari does in 2002, what McClaren did in 2000 of three and never gets the F 2002 on track racing the whole season with the F 2001 B? How does that year play out? Does Montoya win the 2002 championship? Ben, what do you think? Well, I think in a season where the rule changes were basically minimal and therefore doing this kind of carryover thing was I think much easier for all the teams. Given how together the whole Ferrari team was as we touched on earlier in the show, how good the 2001 car was, the fact they could put the new engine in it. The thing I'm not sure about is the gearbox development and the air opportunity that presented how key that was to developing the car through the year, but you'd imagine they'd still be able to develop the old car a bit through the year. The Williams was quick. So Montoya gets all those poles in the middle of the season, but it doesn't, Ferrari using their old car doesn't fix the engine unreliability, the instance when Montoya drives into Schumacher, they still happen. McClaren is still a basket case. Maybe Kimmy gets his first win earlier. Maybe a few of the races are harder for Schumacher or Ferrari to win. Canada for example, is that trickier? I just feel like it's the inevitably the same result because of how coherent the whole Ferrari operation was and it's just maybe that some of the the victory margins are a bit smaller. Yeah, so I'm okay with that. I think we get the same outcome. It's just a bit more interesting along the way. Maybe we'd have done more episodes about 2002 if that was the case. Next question is from Paul Walsh, who says, "How did Lotus end up starting the V10 era with a lead driver who went there to continue with Honda?" So that'd be Nelson PK, a second driver who was backed by Honda, but now they had Judd engines and that's Satura Nakajima as well. Ed, does this explain just how going off the rails Lotus was by this point? Yeah, it's a simple answer. They just went rubbish and Honda just sort of thought what's the point and in fact it changed Honda's approach in the end because even when they hooked up with Terrell, that was to run the old V10 engines which Mugen prepared. So that was very much a clear second string. So yeah, because Lotus was in a pretty bad decline, the results went terrible. So yeah, Honda moved away and Nakajima just happened to be there for a certain amount of time and before they could move them across to Terrell with that deal. So yeah, it's just the sad decline of a Lotus team that was just falling behind technically and you kind of get a little bit of a boost where Lotus is able to kind of hang on to being a relevant team after Chapman's gone. But then it just all sort of falls apart like a house of cards and after they lose center obviously PK's there, they're sort of frontline driver and that doesn't really work either because PK isn't the drivery once was so just a combination of factors and these all feed into each other, don't they? The results on track aren't as good because you haven't got a driver who's at their peak and say you don't get money in and it just turns into this vicious circle and Honda just thought, no, we don't need to be doing this. This is completely pointless. So it's all part of the rather sad decline of Lotus. Kevin Buchart's question is next. It's another 1996 one. Kevin says, I've been watching a bit of 1996 on YouTube recently. Michael Schumacher achieved four legitimate fair and square pole positions from only 16 races against the far superior Williams and Benatons in that binfire of a Ferrari. Is this the greatest overperformance in the V10 era and if not, what is Mark? Do you think Schumacher's performance is in 96, which we touched on earlier with our other 96 question? Do they qualify as the greatest overperformance of the era? I think they do, yeah. I really think they do. That car had no business being anywhere near pole positions and Grand Prix victories and you know you talked to Eddie Irvin about how just how bad that car was. So it was virtually undrivable. Yeah, Michael is doing things like that. I think that was in terms of what he was doing behind a wheel. I think that was maybe peak, peak Michael Schumacher that season. So yeah, I agree. Joe Fitzsimons has our next question. The Ed, this is maybe quite a difficult one. We'll go through it to see how you get on. Joe says, as a younger fan, can you talk about how Senna was viewed during his career compared to how he's viewed now? Now, this came up in our cross documentary chat that we had actually didn't really talk about the impact of not only Senna's death, but then things like the center film where Senna, he was already a gold, I guess, in Brazil, but it's created. We have a Senna myth now, don't we? How would you say he was actually portrayed at the time? Yeah, he's been sanctified now. It's not defied as he says. He's not a real human being. With real human frailties. Now, looking back at the time, a combination of having watched it at the time, obviously, it was through British television and British coverage. So that's a certain perspective. And also what I've read from coverage of the time from also different countries, and you know, you get a view from speaking to people. Senna, he was seen as the gold standard driver, at least once he'd been the star up and come. He was firmly established, certainly by the time he's at McLaren as the best driver on the grid, but he didn't have these imperfections kind of white washed almost because he was seen as someone who would push things too far. He would be aggressive on track to the point where someone would have seen him as dangerous. And in that regard, I think you could probably draw comparison today with Max Verstappen. I think he was absolutely in terms of the perception, the Max Verstappen of the day, you know, seen as someone who is the gold standard of driver, the driver, everybody wants to have, but who on occasions will go a little bit too far. Because Senna did make stakes as well. Mega popular, but not without his detractors. Oh, absolutely. As Max is. Yeah, he was divisive. There were people who really, really dislike Senna just as there are with Verstappen. There were people who loved him and were defending him to the health. So you'd see a similar sort of things of Verstappen if that was a social media era. And obviously there was a, it's a slightly different age. There was a bit more mystery and mystique to the drivers than as well. So that, that would have played a part for Senna, also the way he talked about things people, people quite liked. So there was that sort of extra distance. And also you have to remember different countries in Brazil. He really was a God, because he was a someone who he, he'd get a lot involved in philanthropic activities in Brazil as well, where there was some terrible poverty to be tackled still is. And also he was somebody who helped make Brazil, because Brazil sort of got that culture feeling like it's treated and seen by others as a bit of a second-class nation. But Senna was the guy who really put them on the map. So, okay, you're a Brazilian football, but this was in another sporting field when it was Brazil was right on top and Harold is a gold standard. He wasn't the first Brazilian to do that, but he was an extra step. So if you are someone in Brazil in 1992 or whatever, they just said something slightly different. But I think you can kind of map him onto Verstappen. So you've seen as the best, but someone who pushed the boundaries and he definitely had his detractors. And like anything, he wasn't seen as perfect, because whenever you have drivers retire and the bit of time passes, people kind of boil them down to a few things, don't they? And the rough edges get, get ground off. But he was a real human being at Senna. And he was seen perhaps a bit more as that in the time than he was now. But certainly he was, he was respected, even by those who felt he pushed to get to the next question. to far as an absolutely great driver in terms of what he could do behind the wheel. Yeah, I think Ed covered very well the cultural impact he was having even during his lifetime. And if the question is asking whether he was from a racing perspective considered in such a mighty way as he has been on the hide side, yeah, absolutely even before he got to F1 that was something very, very special was very, very obvious about Ed and Senna from Formula 4 through 2000, through Formula 3. And there was, you know, I think a certain generation of F1 of the F1 community at that time were probably not that aware of just how special this guy was as he was coming through. And there was, it was quite amusing as a fan watching them be surprised by how sensationally he was in the in the tournament because it was just so predictable, you know, who's and I firmly believe that if you'd put him in an 85 McLaren or Williams he would have been vying for the World Championship as a rookie. And so that was, that was his level. And yeah, he absolutely was considered something quite remarkable even as he was, even as he was doing it. It's not just a hindsight I think. I'm glad Ed made the Verstappen reference because I remembered trying to set up interviews when Max was still relatively new in it Red Bull and Honda were supplying the team were really still relatively near that point and they're building the winning team if you like. And Honda were making the comparison between Verstappen and Senna. But it was a comparison that Verstappen didn't like and it was something that he and Red Bull were very keen to kind of distance themselves from. And I think it does apply in terms of, you know, his obvious otherworldly ability in the car. And also some of the kind of dubious driving tactics that he was prepared to employ. But I think the comparison falls apart a little bit in terms of a, his popularity with the media because I think Senna and Prost was very good on this in the documentary about Prost that Senna was very good at using the media and having them on the side. Whereas I don't think Max is, I think he gets, and has had quite a rough ride from the media and also doesn't really care about it too much. He tries to distance himself. I think that's what he is. He's not, he's not interested in putting in the effort. No. He hasn't really seen the need for it. No, it's something that just happens and he's kind of dismissive of it. And I also, he doesn't have the spirituality aspect that Senna had, you know, this idea that God protects me in the car that Prost was kind of a little bit afraid of, I think, in terms of where Senna was prepared to go on track. Max is a purely rational driver as far as I can see. He's much more in the kind of Schumacher camp in terms of being, you know, more technically focused and trying to strip away, maybe even Kimmy Rykin and actually in terms of trying to strip away all the other stuff and the things that distract me from what I'm doing in the car. There was a mention earlier of what what Senna fandom would have been like in the social media era. I mean, we had a taste of that earlier in this series. We did Suzuki 90. We suggested quite strongly that what Edson did at the first corner at Suzuki Prost might not have been the finest piece of driving you'll ever see. And there are plenty of Senna fans, many of whom probably never saw him race live. And they felt very strongly about our decision to criticize him for that. So we've lived a little bit of it. And it doesn't make me want to, it makes me glad he social media wasn't around during the real Senna Prost stuff. Let's finish with a great question from John Ares who has put together his own classic V10s calendar. He says it should always consist of 16 races and asks what would be our 16 race V10 era calendar. But I'm going to set the scene with John's calendar and then see if anybody wants to adjust or improve it. Because I think John's done a really good job. So we've got 16 races here. We're starting the season with the Brazilian Grand Prix into Lagos. Round two is the Malaysia Grand Prix. Round three at the Samarino Grand Prix at pre 95 Himalaya. So the the preacher came version of Himalaya. Round four is Monaco. Round five is the Spanish Grand Prix at Barcelona. Round six is the Canadian Grand Prix. Specifically the 1992 version. So a slightly bendier version of Montreal. Round seven Mexican Grand Prix. Obviously on a slightly different version of the track to what we have today. Round eight is the British Grand Prix on the 1991 version of Silverstone. Round nine is Hockenheim, the German Grand Prix 1990 Hockenheim. If I remember right now it's slightly faster as she came back then. Next up is the Hungarian Grand Prix on the 2003 onwards spec of Hungary. So when they sharpened up a few of the corners to try and make the racing better. Then we've got a Belgian Grand Prix at Spa. Circuit version not specified, which is interesting because Spa did go through quite a few changes even in the V10 era. So I'm going to pick the version of Spa that we had until about what 2001 when they started messing around with the bus stop. So we'll go for what we consider original V10s Spa. 2000s onwards version of Monza for the Italian Grand Prix. There were chicane changes that year. Round 13 Portuguese Grand Prix at Estaril 1991 version. So again fast this version of Estaril. Round 14 is the European Grand Prix at the Nürburgring. And again this is the 2002 Nürburgring. So that's the first corner was a hairpin rather than an S-band. We're almost there. Round 15 and you have to finish with these final two races. I think Japanese Grand Prix at Susuco 1989 spec and we're finishing with the Australian Grand Prix in Adelaide. I think that is a great effort and it took me quite a while to think of any suggestions that we could change. In terms of being the classic calendar, I think you could debate if a French Grand Prix should be in there. But I perhaps see why one isn't because your start was short Paul Ricard or various versions of Maddy Cours. So I can see why you'd go for Mexico instead. And I do think the original Mexico or the original. The version of Mexico City we had in the early V10 era was a great track. Ed, I see your hand has gone up. Any changes you'd make to this this calendar from John? Well, I certainly agree. It's an excellent calendar and a lot of the fact is 16 races. That's the correct bring back the 10 zero number of races as well. But mentioning of France, I would actually say Manicorin, which I know I may be in the minority on, but I actually think it was a pretty good track. Which version? Oh, I didn't really thought about the version. Probably. There's three to choose from. I remember I had an extra little twist after the hairpin at the beginning. They straighten that out. And then you've got the changes they made at the end of the year that created what I guess we can call Yano Trillicourna. Yeah, I quite like the late version actually. I can't enjoy the the later version of the red of the final chicane. Yeah, yeah, I think that would probably be reasonable. But there's a lot of bits in that track. I quite like. So I'm basically arguing for two changes, which is Manicorin, the A1 ring in, which I think got a bad route because it wasn't the Ulster Icarim. But actually, it's a really, really nice, fun, interesting circuit where all the stuff happens. So I'm arguing those two in and I'm saying Nürburgring out because I'm saying we don't need a European Grand Prix. And actually, the Nürburgring is quite a nice track, but I'm now going to flip the argument there. It's not the Nordschleifer and I think it's a loosable track. And I'm also perhaps slightly harshly saying Esther out as well, as part of that, which is slightly controversial. I know, but I thought I thought about Barcelona actually because it's a it's a very good formula one car track, but I'm not sure it produced great races. Whatever happens, there's got to be an Iberian peninsula race, whatever happens. They could rotate. Exactly. We could argue if it's Barcelona or Astero, but those are the two I wanted in and the two I took out. But I do like the as well, the starter into Lagos and the Ender and Adelaide as well. I think they've done well. I tried to create a calendar of the of the other end of the scale of the worst bring back, bring, bring that V10 era tracks because there's only enough for 15 because there's only 31 tracks, but I won't offer that right now. We'll put it out on Patreon. I'm glad you mentioned the A1 ring-aid, because I think that deserves a shout. I would probably, if we have to be swapping races out, I also would like hereth and maybe so maybe the Spanish Grand Prix becomes hereth because I just always found Barcelona boring and then maybe the European Grand Prix can be the A1 ring because I never really liked the Nürburgring, to be honest. So I definitely would lose those two, but maybe you can make a case for adding because there were 17 race seasons in the mid 90s. I know it wasn't that popular, but I kind of want to put an honorable mention in for the Argentinian Grand Prix. I was kind of happy when that was on the calendar of it disappointed when it left. And I thought it was quite a decent track. Actually, I certainly preferred that track to save Magnicore, which I agree you kind of have to have because it's a classic race, but if you're just doing your ideal and not really taking too much account and kind of prestige, then I would happily lose the French Grand Prix as the question did. Yeah, I think if we were to just list our 16 favourite tracks, some of these wouldn't get in, I mean Barcelona and the V10 era, it started off well with those kind of reign-affected races in 91 and 92, but after that pretty forgettable for much of the era. But yeah, our hat's off to you, John, an incredible, incredible effort with this, this calendar. And I think you've really captured the spirit of what a V10 era can do. calendar should be about. Good point, no, Ben, about your cheat code for the fact that we could have 17 races. I remember the first, I'm going to say the first 17 race season of the year was 95, I think. And I remember it blew my mind as a young fan. It was going to be an extra grand prix because all I knew at that point was 16 race seasons, which does sometimes make me wonder how I'd feel if I was a young fan now about living 24 races. We'll end it there. Thank you, Mark, Ed and Ben for tackling these questions for us. As I said at the beginning, we'll do some members only Q&As between now and season 13, which will be in the new year so we can get through some just what we'll scratch a bit deeper at the surface of the nearly 200 questions we've had. And if the thought of going without bring back V10s until the new year fills you with absolute dread, then come join us in a race members club. I've drawn up a plan of bonus episodes. I am waiting for it to get approved, but if it doesn't get approved, I'll just force it through. We're effectively going to be releasing an episode every single week between this one coming out and Christmas. So if you need your weekly bring back V10s fix, there is a way to get it. It's very reasonably priced to come and check out the race members club on Patreon. And with that, if you're a member with us, I don't need to say see you at the start of season 13. I need to say probably, see you next week.