Ponderbox

[FMecha]

Instead of doing the annual bump of the "remembering Imola '94" thread, I would state an annual reminder here that it has been 21 years since Senna's (and Ratzenberger's) death in the fateful race weekend in Imola.

Now, discuss Senna (and Ratzenberger).

[Bobby Doorknobs]

Instead of doing the annual bump of the "remembering Imola '94" thread, I would state an annual reminder here that it has been 21 years since Senna's (and Ratzenberger's) death in the fateful race weekend in Imola.

Now, discuss Senna (and Ratzenberger).

I wore my Roland Ratzenberger tribute t-shirt that I got for Christmas for the first time today. It has Simtek's logo on the front and the words "For Roland" on the back. This is what it looks like.

Not sure if there's much to discuss with regards to the two drivers. Everything has pretty much been said before numerous times over the years. That doesn't mean they are any less forgotten by us though.

[CoopsII]

Not sure if there's much to discuss with regards to the two drivers. Everything has pretty much been said before numerous times over the years. That doesn't mean they are any less forgotten by us though.

Yeah, I agree. I find it a bit of a relief this year that the media isn't bandwaggoning the crap out of Imola 1994. I prefer to remember quietly.

[dr-baker]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

[UncreativeUsername37]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

[Klon]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

There's also DTM.

[dr-baker]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

There's also DTM.

Are either of them live on free-to-air in the UK? I know I've already missed the first DTM race of the weekend...

[Bobby Doorknobs]

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

There's also DTM.

Are either of them live on free-to-air in the UK? I know I've already missed the first DTM race of the weekend...

I don't think they are. They aren't in Ireland anyway, and we get many of the same channels that are also available in the UK. The fact that I haven't been able to watch the WEC since we stopped paying for Sky has really annoyed me.

[Dom_Wings]

Also there is MotoGP.

[Spectoremg]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32503163
By Nelson Piquet Jr - a big name for a big story!

[DemocalypseNow]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/32503163
By Nelson Piquet Jr - a big name for a big story!

Piquet is wrong about one thing - the bad career decisions are his fault. He could have remained at McLaren had he not conducted himself with such a basic lack of professionalism in 2007. When a driver begins working against his own team his position becomes untenable. Even if there was a perceived bias towards Hamilton in the management of the team, whining about it and making a nuisance of himself wasn't going to suddenly change that. A different approach to the situation might have seen him stay put for 2008 and fight Hamilton for the world title again.

Same thing at Ferrari. Made himself a persona non-grata with his attitude last year. Yes, the car is bad, so you don't need to shout from the rooftops how terrible the team is. People can see. It's not a driver's job to berate his own team.

It's hard to feel sorry for Alonso's choices of the wrong team at the wrong time, when in all cases bar 2006 he was forced out of the door because of his own poor conduct.

[DanielPT]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

WEC was pretty good again this weekend...

[dr-baker]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

WEC was pretty good again this weekend...

Just a shame it's not televised live on free-to-air in the UK then (as far as I am currently aware...)!

[DanielPT]

There's WEC... that's like the length of all of those, right?

WEC was pretty good again this weekend...

Just a shame it's not televised live on free-to-air in the UK then (as far as I am currently aware...)!

I saw it on Eurosport. While not totally free-to-air, in Portugal it comes with any basic cable subscription.

[dr-baker]

I saw it on Eurosport. While not totally free-to-air, in Portugal it comes with any basic cable subscription.

Ah OK. Not sure if we have it here at home, but I have Sky F1 but not BT Sport/ESPN (no IndyCar for me - ).

[DemocalypseNow]

I saw it on Eurosport. While not totally free-to-air, in Portugal it comes with any basic cable subscription.

Ah OK. Not sure if we have it here at home, but I have Sky F1 but not BT Sport/ESPN (no IndyCar for me - ).

British Eurosport 1 & 2 are available on the entry level Sky and Virgin Media packagaes. Don't know about YouView.

However, I'm a bit confused myself - I actually had Eurosport on yesterday and didn't notice WEC anywhere. They were mostly showing the action at the Hungaroring (WTCC & its support races) and then some cycling.

[DanielPT]

However, I'm a bit confused myself - I actually had Eurosport on yesterday and didn't notice WEC anywhere. They were mostly showing the action at the Hungaroring (WTCC & its support races) and then some cycling.

WEC Race was on Saturday not Sunday.

[DemocalypseNow]

However, I'm a bit confused myself - I actually had Eurosport on yesterday and didn't notice WEC anywhere. They were mostly showing the action at the Hungaroring (WTCC & its support races) and then some cycling.

WEC Race was on Saturday not Sunday.

Well there you go. What is this, Formula E? Raceday is Sunday. Silly WEC.

[UncreativeUsername37]

WEC was pretty good again this weekend...

I only started watching WEC this year—I'd seen a few hours of it last year and it seemed pretty good—and after Silverstone I decided "yep, I'm watching the whole season". This race was really good as well.

WEC Race was on Saturday not Sunday.

Well there you go. What is this, Formula E? Raceday is Sunday. Silly WEC.

I know, right? I assumed it was on Sunday and so had to see it on YouTube. (Not to imply I would otherwise watch it on normal television....)

[pi314159]

WEC was pretty good again this weekend...

I only started watching WEC this year—I'd seen a few hours of it last year and it seemed pretty good—and after Silverstone I decided "yep, I'm watching the whole season". This race was really good as well.

Yes, it wasn't quite as action-packed in LMP1 as the Silverstone race, but it's hard to improve on that one. Also, the strategy was really interesting this time. I was really surprised to see the Audi pull away from the Porsche at the end of the race despite having much older tires. Two great races for the start of the season, I can't wait for Le Mans.

[ibsey]

How good would Jim Clark have been without Colin Chapman?

I ask this because I'm a massive Clark fan, and he strikes me as more of a 'natural' driver rather than a 'technical' driver. So I wonder how good he was at setting cars up by himself and without Chapman's guidance?

Especially given his background i.e. a shy farmer with little prior knowledge of cars, other than his natural ability to drive them quicker than anyone else. Also bearing in mind that other natural drivers like Peterson or Alesi, tended to struggle on car setup, preferring instead to use their own ability to drive around setup problems. Which possibly cost them in terms of results.

Also another though to what extend did Chapman assist Clark's racing career by removing the element of team politics and possible distractions. Thereby allowing Clark to solely focus on his racing?

After Clark's and Rindt's death Chapman apparently told other drivers (like Emmo) he didn't want to build up the same kind of bond with them in case the worst happened.

[Aguaman]

So I see a tweet from 'The Buxton Blog' comparing in some stupid silly way Lewis Hamilton with Hank Aaron. I don't even know what to think now.

That's the oddest sports comparison I've seen since someone tried to compare Vettel to the Great and Amazing Steven Peter Devereux Smith.

[Salamander]

So I see a tweet from 'The Buxton Blog' comparing in some stupid silly way Lewis Hamilton with Hank Aaron. I don't even know what to think now.

Uhhhhhh....

... how is that comparing him to Hank Aaron?

[Aguaman]

So I see a tweet from 'The Buxton Blog' comparing in some stupid silly way Lewis Hamilton with Hank Aaron. I don't even know what to think now.

Uhhhhhh....

... how is that comparing him to Hank Aaron?

I missed that tweet. My mistake. lol I'm dumbass for that.

[RAK]

Continuing with the Hank Aaron thing, I'm not a baseball fan, but I wish he still had the home run record rather than the odious steroid-laden cheat, Barry Bonds.

[Aguaman]

So Mercedes are doing an Ask Toto thing

Question I've seen include:

- If Hamilton had fresher tyres than those behind, why risk pitting at all? He would not have lost any places.
- Why did you ever consider pitting Lewis when track position is everything in Monaco? #AskToto
- How hard is to cheer up Lewis Hamilton after this mistake?Rosberg's victory will affect the friendship between them?#AskToto
- #AskToto why is it that you favour Nico over Lewis when Lewis is the world champion

Oh boy....

[Salamander]

- #AskToto why is it that you favour Nico over Lewis when Lewis is the world champion

Oh man, that's a good one.

[Aguaman]

- #AskToto will you be gifting Hamilton a win in the future? As j found rosbergs celebration yesterday sickening!!
- #AskToto I predicted that Lewis wouldn't make it out and all I have is a tv. I'm renowned for my strategy, can I get a job?
- why did you pit @LewisHamilton and not @nico_rosberg?
- why would you only pit hamilton and not rosberg who had older tyres #AskToto
- Did you and Dorothy make out of Oz okay? #AskToto

It just keeps on getting better and better.

[WeirdKerr]

- #AskToto will you be gifting Hamilton a win in the future? As j found rosbergs celebration yesterday sickening!!
- #AskToto I predicted that Lewis wouldn't make it out and all I have is a tv. I'm renowned for my strategy, can I get a job?
- why did you pit @LewisHamilton and not @nico_rosberg?
- why would you only pit hamilton and not rosberg who had older tyres #AskToto
- Did you and Dorothy make out of Oz okay? #AskToto

It just keeps on getting better and better.

ROFL at the last one.....

[AndreaModa]

My own two submissions...

[novitopoli]

That would probably be better off in a blog, but given that I haven't got any here it is:

I have been thinking during the last couple of months on what decisions should be taken in my opinion to save Formula 1 from its decline. Well, what I love most about the golden era of Formula 1 is that creativity and freedom played a major role in it. Cars from different teams actually looked somehow different, and the dawn of a new era was due to the right choice made in the right moment, rather than to some behind-the-scenes agreement. The people in charge (mostly) conceived rules as rules, rather than as an expedient to end a time of domination by one team in favour of another one.

The main concept is trying to bring back this freedom into Formula 1, albeit with modern safety standards. First, entering Formula 1 should be made easier. Sure not as easy as in the late 80’s, but anyway easier as today, when there is a stance like “hey, we’re such an exclusive club, no one can join us!” and entering the sport has such a high price that almost everyone gets discouraged from doing it. A good step in this direction would be allowing teams to run one car instead of two, if they wish. Thus, smaller teams could concentrate their efforts on a single entry and fare better. Moreover, I somehow think it would be easier to find six new 1-car entries than three new 2-car entries.

Then, there are two possibilities to cut costs. The first one is allowing customer cars, and Formula 1 is heading towards this direction. But, wait, where’s freedom then? If everyone just turns up buying the best car on the market, Formula 1 will sooner or later become a single-spec series: that would be the moment I would lose any interest in Formula One at all. I can’t get this “if all the cars are the same, then it’s all about the drivers” hype: this sport should be also about the cars, as it always was. The second, and in my opinion much better, way to cut costs and increase competitiveness is a strict budget cap, something like 30 million € for single-car entries, 60 million € for double-car entries (just replace this numbers with some realistic figures, I don’t know the actual costs). If they ask to, teams should be allowed to have a higher budget cap during their first two seasons in Formula 1, due to the higher costs involved in setting up a team from scratch.

After that, I would scrap a lot of small rules from the rulebook. Teams should be required to run cars which have no driver aids of any sort, somehow resemble current Formula 1 designs (that means no covered wheels nor closed cockpits, please, that’s not what this is about) and have to conform to strict security standards. Other than that, engineers should be left free to experiment, rather than having to check at any single millimetre if dimensions and structure comply with hundreds of pages of rules. It shouldn’t matter if the nosecone design resembles the current Mercedes one or the 1991 Footwork one, as long as everything gets crash-tested. Teams should also be free to use any kind of engine they wish, turbo or naturally aspirated, conventional, hybrid or electric, V4, V6, V8, V10, V12 or even W12 and so on, as long as they run on “regular” gasoline or diesel (and not on toluene or other similar stuff). Engines could be built in-house or bought from any other team or from third parties, with prices set by FIA to a figure which takes building costs into account.

The idea is, everyone starts with the same budget and is free to spend it as it wishes (albeit with regulations assuring every staff member gets a reasonable salary). It’s up to the managements of the single teams to decide whether it’s better to spend more money on a more powerful engine and to spare on the chassis or vice versa, or whether it’s cleverer to spend most of the money at the beginning or to save more for mid-season developments, or whether it’s worth it to build/rent a wind gallery (bigger teams who already have one should rent it to other teams for a fixed price) or it’s better off letting CFD do it cheaper.

Mid-season testing and chassis and engine updates of any kind should be allowed, given that they pass the mandatory controls. There should be more tyre suppliers and teams should be able to decide for themselves if it’s worth it to refuel mid-race. I would also scrap any rules about a maximum number of power units per season, as a budget cap would already represent a fairly strong limitation. Same applies to rules about engine development: it's a matter of budget, not of tokens to "spend".

Such an emphasis on the car would not mean neglecting drivers: they would be able again to thoroughly test their cars outside race weekends and pass them to their needs. Teams would also be able to build their cars around the drivers, and not around regulations.

This view is utopic, as in no way will stronger teams ever accept a budget cap (we saw it 2010). If that ever were to happen, though, that would be one of the few ways to bring Formula One back to its roots: the pinnacle of motor racing and, at the same time, the pinnacle of engineering, with different-looking cars, different drivers, different driving styles. And at the end, may the best win.

[mario]

That would probably be better off in a blog, but given that I haven't got any here it is:

I have been thinking during the last couple of months on what decisions should be taken in my opinion to save Formula 1 from its decline. Well, what I love most about the golden era of Formula 1 is that creativity and freedom played a major role in it. Cars from different teams actually looked somehow different, and the dawn of a new era was due to the right choice made in the right moment, rather than to some behind-the-scenes agreement. The people in charge (mostly) conceived rules as rules, rather than as an expedient to end a time of domination by one team in favour of another one.

The main concept is trying to bring back this freedom into Formula 1, albeit with modern safety standards. First, entering Formula 1 should be made easier. Sure not as easy as in the late 80’s, but anyway easier as today, when there is a stance like “hey, we’re such an exclusive club, no one can join us!” and entering the sport has such a high price that almost everyone gets discouraged from doing it. A good step in this direction would be allowing teams to run one car instead of two, if they wish. Thus, smaller teams could concentrate their efforts on a single entry and fare better. Moreover, I somehow think it would be easier to find six new 1-car entries than three new 2-car entries.

Then, there are two possibilities to cut costs. The first one is allowing customer cars, and Formula 1 is heading towards this direction. But, wait, where’s freedom then? If everyone just turns up buying the best car on the market, Formula 1 will sooner or later become a single-spec series: that would be the moment I would lose any interest in Formula One at all. I can’t get this “if all the cars are the same, then it’s all about the drivers” hype: this sport should be also about the cars, as it always was. The second, and in my opinion much better, way to cut costs and increase competitiveness is a strict budget cap, something like 30 million € for single-car entries, 60 million € for double-car entries (just replace this numbers with some realistic figures, I don’t know the actual costs). If they ask to, teams should be allowed to have a higher budget cap during their first two seasons in Formula 1, due to the higher costs involved in setting up a team from scratch.

After that, I would scrap a lot of small rules from the rulebook. Teams should be required to run cars which have no driver aids of any sort, somehow resemble current Formula 1 designs (that means no covered wheels nor closed cockpits, please, that’s not what this is about) and have to conform to strict security standards. Other than that, engineers should be left free to experiment, rather than having to check at any single millimetre if dimensions and structure comply with hundreds of pages of rules. It shouldn’t matter if the nosecone design resembles the current Mercedes one or the 1991 Footwork one, as long as everything gets crash-tested. Teams should also be free to use any kind of engine they wish, turbo or naturally aspirated, conventional, hybrid or electric, V4, V6, V8, V10, V12 or even W12 and so on, as long as they run on “regular” gasoline or diesel (and not on toluene or other similar stuff). Engines could be built in-house or bought from any other team or from third parties, with prices set by FIA to a figure which takes building costs into account.

The idea is, everyone starts with the same budget and is free to spend it as it wishes (albeit with regulations assuring every staff member gets a reasonable salary). It’s up to the managements of the single teams to decide whether it’s better to spend more money on a more powerful engine and to spare on the chassis or vice versa, or whether it’s cleverer to spend most of the money at the beginning or to save more for mid-season developments, or whether it’s worth it to build/rent a wind gallery (bigger teams who already have one should rent it to other teams for a fixed price) or it’s better off letting CFD do it cheaper.

Mid-season testing and chassis and engine updates of any kind should be allowed, given that they pass the mandatory controls. There should be more tyre suppliers and teams should be able to decide for themselves if it’s worth it to refuel mid-race. I would also scrap any rules about a maximum number of power units per season, as a budget cap would already represent a fairly strong limitation. Same applies to rules about engine development: it's a matter of budget, not of tokens to "spend".

Such an emphasis on the car would not mean neglecting drivers: they would be able again to thoroughly test their cars outside race weekends and pass them to their needs. Teams would also be able to build their cars around the drivers, and not around regulations.

This view is utopic, as in no way will stronger teams ever accept a budget cap (we saw it 2010). If that ever were to happen, though, that would be one of the few ways to bring Formula One back to its roots: the pinnacle of motor racing and, at the same time, the pinnacle of engineering, with different-looking cars, different drivers, different driving styles. And at the end, may the best win.

With regards to single car entries, there is some question over whether that really would make things substantially cheaper.

I recall that Symonds was asked about this when he worked for Marussia; his response was that, given the vast bulk of an F1 teams expenditure goes on research and development work, the difference in cost between running just one car and running two cars is no longer that large.
Similarly, a number of other cost factors would remain relatively constant - with most engine deals, for example, a sizeable amount of the overheads is to cover the support staff and infrastructure provided by the engine supplier, and that support infrastructure would not change drastically if you only had one car running.

Budget capping is something of a double edged sword, since in some ways it can also act to lock in certain advantages for certain teams. Infrastructure spending is one example that is cited - some teams have complained that, since budget capping would eat into their ability to invest and upgrade their facilities, it would give the largest outfits a permanent advantage given that they would maintain an infrastructure advantage.

Furthermore, as has always been the question, where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to determining the budget cap? Engines is one area - whilst your proposal sets a price at the point of sale, it doesn't necessarily control the spending outside of that area, and that could create issues.

As it stands, we have a somewhat complicated picture - we have two outfits, Renault Sport and Honda Racing, that are manufacturer backed entities that work with a nominated works team but also undertake motorsport activities outside of F1 through the same outfit.

Mercedes, meanwhile, owns both its own separate engine division - Mercedes HPE - and its own works team, although again Mercedes utilises that outfit to run its operations outside of F1 (DTM, GT3 etc.). Ferrari, meanwhile, has no separation between its engine division and its chassis production arms - the two are integrated together within the same outfit, such that defining what exactly is spent by whom is not immediately obvious.

As for the issue of diversity, one issue is that there generally tends to be a relatively narrow set of optimal constraints that tend to push teams towards a particular configuration. Even at times in the past where the rules have been more open, there have been instances of that - back in the 1960's in the 1.5 litre formula, there was some convergence towards a particular engine format, with BRM, Ferrari and Coventry Climax at times sharing some common elements (Ferrari and BRM, for example, had almost identical bores and strokes for their engines).

Similarly, in the 1980's, the turbo era saw a convergence towards the twin turbo V6 engine, which offered the best compromise between packaging, power and fuel consumption, whilst in the 1990's we saw a rapid shift towards the high nose aero configuration pioneered by Tyrrell.

Without having something such as the "Balance of Performance" system that is in operation in the WEC, I think that it would be hard to prevent the sort of technical convergence, and therefore similarity in car design, that you have seen crop up time after time.

[AndreaModa]

Furthermore, as has always been the question, where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to determining the budget cap? Engines is one area - whilst your proposal sets a price at the point of sale, it doesn't necessarily control the spending outside of that area, and that could create issues.

As it stands, we have a somewhat complicated picture - we have two outfits, Renault Sport and Honda Racing, that are manufacturer backed entities that work with a nominated works team but also undertake motorsport activities outside of F1 through the same outfit.

Mercedes, meanwhile, owns both its own separate engine division - Mercedes HPE - and its own works team, although again Mercedes utilises that outfit to run its operations outside of F1 (DTM, GT3 etc.). Ferrari, meanwhile, has no separation between its engine division and its chassis production arms - the two are integrated together within the same outfit, such that defining what exactly is spent by whom is not immediately obvious.

I think it's as simple as saying this; each team as "x million" amount to spend on building a chassis, related parts, research, development, etc.

Then all engines are capped at a cost of "y million" and tyres capped at a cost of "z million". Any team such as Mercedes or Ferrari who consider themselves works teams, gets x and y combined to cover both chassis and engine costs. Williams meanwhile would just get x and have to spend y buying an engine from someone else.

If we had a daft situation like Michelin launching their own team, they would have x and z combined to form their budget for chassis and their own tyres.

Thus, any chassis, engine or tyre development could be carried out by the manufacturer, but regardless of that development cost they have to provide their product at a guaranteed price to anyone wishing to buy it. They have the freedom to develop at will with no constraints, but in the knowledge that they will get a specific price for it. An arms race won't see a rise in costs, thus a continual, sustainable model for teams to compete on.

The only issue I can see to this is the problem of works teams spending infinitely on engine development to give themselves an advantage (because they effectively get their own engines for free).

[Spectoremg]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

I watched the WEC highlights for the first time - the Belgian race. I must say it didn't set my imagination on fire. What they need to do is shorten the races to about an hour and a half to two hours, have one driver per car, lose some of the bodywork (especially around the wheels)....

[AndreaModa]

A second weekend in a row with no BTCC, F1 or FE while none are in off-seasons?! What the...?

I watched the WEC highlights for the first time - the Belgian race. I must say it didn't set my imagination on fire. What they need to do is shorten the races to about an hour and a half to two hours, have one driver per car, lose some of the bodywork (especially around the wheels)....

Don't worry, they've already done that for you. Look how well it turned out...

[dinizintheoven]

Wait a mo. I'm sure it's been said on this forum before, more than once: isn't the main problem with imposing a cost cap - of any level - that all the teams will put some of their budget towards some "creative" accountancy that would make the world's most corrupt dictatorships look like complete halfwits in comparison?

[novitopoli]

I think it's as simple as saying this; each team as "x million" amount to spend on building a chassis, related parts, research, development, etc.

Then all engines are capped at a cost of "y million" and tyres capped at a cost of "z million". Any team such as Mercedes or Ferrari who consider themselves works teams, gets x and y combined to cover both chassis and engine costs. Williams meanwhile would just get x and have to spend y buying an engine from someone else.

If we had a daft situation like Michelin launching their own team, they would have x and z combined to form their budget for chassis and their own tyres.

Thus, any chassis, engine or tyre development could be carried out by the manufacturer, but regardless of that development cost they have to provide their product at a guaranteed price to anyone wishing to buy it. They have the freedom to develop at will with no constraints, but in the knowledge that they will get a specific price for it. An arms race won't see a rise in costs, thus a continual, sustainable model for teams to compete on.

The only issue I can see to this is the problem of works teams spending infinitely on engine development to give themselves an advantage (because they effectively get their own engines for free).

That's pretty much what I had in mind. And yes, I'm aware that the problem with any such rule is that someone will always try to game the system...

[MorbidelliObese]

What other rock-paper-scissors driver sets are there besides Hill-Frentzen-Villeneuve?

Reviving a bit of an old question, but I've just been watching re-runs of the 1986 season (full races, albeit most of them with the commentary in Brazilian Portuguese, plus the season review) so it's fresh in my mind.

de Angelis beats Mansell
Mansell beats Patrese
Patrese beats de Angelis

Admittedly with a tragically small sample set for the Patrese > Elio bit, but it was one of the things I noticed about those early '86 races, Riccardo was usually clearly ahead in the Brabham inter-team battle, maybe it was just a case of him suiting the difficult low-line car better?

[WeirdKerr]

What other rock-paper-scissors driver sets are there besides Hill-Frentzen-Villeneuve?

Schumacher Herbert Irvine possibly

[Salamander]

What other rock-paper-scissors driver sets are there besides Hill-Frentzen-Villeneuve?

Schumacher Herbert Irvine possibly

That would involve one of them beating Schumi though.