Talk:1997 European Grand Prix

The paragraph on the collision needs to be reworked
The whole idea that Villeneuve would have overshot the turn is entirely POV and needs to be removed or at least qualified as pure conjecture. If you're going to quote other people's opinions those people should be impartial experts, and this is clearly not the case here. The two sources listed are Luc Domenjoz and James Allen: authors of Schumacher biographies. That is, they are neither engineers nor race drivers with expertise in the field, but writers with a vested interest in mitigitating the circumstances surrounding the collision. One can also draw an adverse inference from the fact that the Ferrari team produced zero evidence to this effect (Schumacher's telemetry plus the video evidence for starters) when jumping to Schumacher's defence. Given all the other accusations that Ferrari were leveling at Villeneuve and the Williams team, surely they would have made this accusation too if there were any merit to it? It was very much in Ferrari's interest to show that Villeneuve would have taken himself out of the race but for the collision, but Ferrari never made that argument.

I'm not even sure what Allen and Domenjoz were even looking at to come to such a conclusion. The video evidence shows Villeneuve not even locking his wheels under braking, and making the corner exit with about a meter to spare. In any event, Schumacher hit him from behind, and the momentary loss of traction combined with the change in the car's attitude certainly did not help Villeneuve negotiate the corner.

Quite frankly, I am amazed that ten years after the fact, people still don't want to give Villeneuve credit for driving a great race and making a spectacular pass. Schumacher is not God, OK? He made a huge mistake in not taking a defensive racing line, and Villeneuve took advantage of it. That's all there is to it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

I'm tempted to agree with you here. At no point during any official investigation would it appear the Villeneuve overshoot was investigated and the two sources seem a bit biased as they were both taken from Schumacher biography's. It's far from a universally recognised view so I feel we should be giving the view that Schumacher turned into Villeneuve far more prominence and it would be good to get some references from respected sources and journalists to support the view that the FIA believed to be true. AlexJ 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't want the article to be an exercise in Schumacher-bashing, either. The article should emphasize that it was a fantastic race, with 47 qualifying-type laps being put in by two outstanding drivers, with the championship on the line. It is widely regarded as one of the great races in F1 history, and the article should reflect that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.8.145 (talk) 22:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Yoicks - didn't mean to cause a problem! Personally, I completely agree that it seems extremely unlikely that Villeneuve would have missed the corner - at worst I reckon he would have overshot his apex slightly, offering MS the chance to cut back inside him (an approach demonstrated very ably by Lewis Hamilton a couple of races back :D). Those words were added by me after reviewing the available books covering the incident. The trouble is, we are supposed to represent all notable views from the sources available. As two authors made the point independently, I felt I had to mention it as notable (As an aside, don't forget that it was also Allen who points out that Schumi deliberately turned into Villeneuve, so he's not whitewashing the guy, either. Allen's book is based around the idea that this race was Schumacher's 'big mistake' and follows his 'redemption' from it, so I don't think it is correct to claim that Allen has an interest in mitigating the accident). The difficulty is that the majority view here is silence - no-one denies the view that Villeneuve overshot, probably because it didn't occur to them in the first place. I think what is needed is to leave the Allen/Domenjoz view, but make it crystal clear that the majority of commentators have made no mention of such a possibility. There may be a quote somewhere in Christopher Hilton's biography that makes a positive statement on Villeneuve's move to go with that. Would that sort it? (I'm not a particular Schumacher fan, by the way, go and have a look at the Michael Schumacher talk page ;-))4u1e 14:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, when Schumacher was interviewed immediately after the collision while race was still in progress, he accused Villeneuve of using Schumacher's Ferrari as "a brake", which is likely where this theory comes from (and in all fairness, Schumacher was understandably upset at the turn of events, and still hadn't had a chance to take a close look at the replay). But at Ferrari's press conference a few days later, Schumacher admitted that he had made a mistake leaving the door open and tacitly admitted that Villeneuve had made a clean pass. In other words, when Schumacher and Ferrari were trying desperately to avoid any race bans or point penalties that would hurt their chances the following season, they hedged on the argument that Villeneuve was going off the road anyway. Ferrari had no reason to do that unless they were fairly confident that the telemetry from Villeneuve's car would have proven otherwise. Which is precisely the problem with the contention: if the collision did in fact keep Villeneuve's car on the road it is not at all obvious from the video evidence or the laws of physics; Ferrari did not make the case when they had the opportunity and very strong motivation to do so, and the only sources that are referenced are post hoc opinions of the authors of sympathetic Schumacher biographies. Regurgitating someone else's POV is still POV. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Trouble is, that's your original research as to the reasons for all this. You and I can argue all we like about the whys and wherefores of the race, but what goes in the encyclopedia is that which can be referenced, which those statements by clearly identified individuals can. Representing the point of view of a suitable commentator does not in itself violate WP:NPOV. Giving undue weight to a particular point of view would, however, and I agree the current words may do that, which is why I suggest adding words to the effect of "but most commentators don't think that". We probably also need more detailed coverage of Schumacher's views on the incident, which changed dramatically over time, which is probably rather revealing. 4u1e 24 April 2007, 15:42
 * I am not looking to add my analysis of the collision to the article (in fact I don't think it belongs there). That is, I am not advancing a thesis here. I am just saying: the view that is presented in that one sentence is the non-expert minority opinion of Schumacher's biographers and does not appear to be grounded on anything else. Any "original research" I have put forth is simply to cast doubt on the validity of that opinion. In any academic endeavour the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion, especially in one of these hypothetical "what if" theories that is not easily disprovable.
 * Yes, but the only assertion I'm making is that two motorsports authors (OK, they're not drivers, but they have a degree of expertise on the topic) have stated a view. Which they unquestionably have. What I would love to do is find someone like Martin Brundle or Stirling Moss saying: What a load of poppycock! but unfortunately I have not yet done so. 4u1e 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a way of dealing with this be to move these words to a later section giving all the claims and counter claims of the various parties, leaving the current section as a purely factual account - I don't think anything else in that section is contested? 4u1e 15:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a plan. If it were moved to the "Media Reaction" section that would be fine with me.
 * Fair do's. That's really a more logical place for it. Will do. Thanks for the debate :) 4u1e 21:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. 4u1e 22:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, I do have Schumacher's official quote from a few hours after the race, after the stewards had determined that it was a "racing incident":


 * "Jacques had nothing to lose. He obviously thought he could go for it. Behind me, he would have lost, so he had to do it. I probably would have done the same thing. I braked as late as possible, and he braked even later, so I do not feel that I made a mistake. If I hadn't been there he would have gone straight into the gravel, but he used me as a brake."

My source is On Track vol. 17, no. 22, p. 23. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Interesting point, mysterious stranger :D Perhaps we should put that in the article too? Alex, what do you think? (I guess I shouldn't expect you to reply until the 2nd May?) 4u1e 20:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep could go in the article, seems relevant. The main point I feel we need to get across though, is he was found guilty of having caused the accident, and I don't remember any major media outlet at the time expressing the view that it wasn't the right outcome. Many suggested it wasn't punishment enough. All other opinions/views from important/notable figures should be mentioned but the main fact is, he was found guilty. AlexJ 20:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh absolutely, and that's why mysterious stranger's point about moving the bit about JV possibly having gone in to the corner too fast was right - it's an opinion, not a fact. I suppose what I was really thinking of is that there's a fairly clear trajectory in Schumacher's comments on the issue (if I can trust James Allen's book ;-)):
 * - "Jacques had nothing to lose. He obviously thought he could go for it. Behind me, he would have lost, so he had to do it. I probably would have done the same thing. I braked as late as possible, and he braked even later, so I do not feel that I made a mistake. If I hadn't been there he would have gone straight into the gravel, but he used me as a brake." (From above, just after the race)
 * - "In the past that was the way you did it. I mean if you wouldn't have done it, you'd have been criticized for the other way round. But we live in different times now". (from Allen, p. 27. Many months later, apparently. I have no idea what past Schumacher is thinking of here, yes Senna did it, and arguably even worse, but I don't believe it's ever been acceptable to pull off that kind of manouevre).
 * -"Within the rules of our sport you can move once to block. I should have done that. I should have gone much earlier to the inside and that would have been it. I shouldn't have given him any chance, but for me it was clear he was well enough behind me and would never try it. In a moment he was there; I reacted far too late to try to take my line and close the door.
 * I have thought about it a lot since then and thought, How stupid I was to let that happen." Undated, but fom context probably around the time of the publishing of the book 1999 (Allen, p.30)
 * It would take a lot of work to get all the relevant views, of course, Which is the tricky bit. 4u1e 10:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have (finally) created an account. I didn't mean to be a mystery man or anything :). I posted the Schumacher post-race quote because somebody had asked for it in the preceding discussion.
 * Anyway, It's like I said. I do not want the article to be an exercise in Schumacher-bashing. In fact there were quite a few people who stepped up to defend Schumacher after the incident (Tony Dodgins springs to mind) and I am all in favour of adding some of these opinions in an effort to balance out the article. I just felt that the Villeneuve-would-have-gone-off theory was POV and did not belong in the section of the article that attempted to give a factual account of the race (see | undue weight). That's been fixed and I'm OK with it.
 * As an aside, some of Villeneuve's comments on Canadian television the next day were rather blunt. He explicitly accused Schumacher of deliberately trying to win the championship by taking him out. Amazingly, they were never picked up by the mainstream F1 media, and ergo they probably don't belong in the Wikipedia. It would be difficult to get a transcript anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trac63 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

McLaren & Williams
"However, it later emerged that the exchange of position was by prior arrangement between the two teams in exchange for Mclarens assistance earlier in the race. For reasons never explained, no action was taken regarding this clearly illegal collusion."

I removed the above from the article. For starters there are no sources/references. Secondly BBC reported at the time that "His defence, according to reports in The Times newspaper last Saturday, will refer to claims that the McLaren and Williams teams colluded during the race.". This will therefore have been considered by the FIA during the disciplinary hearing and as they found Schumacher guilty and didn't find Williams/McLaren/Villeneuve guilty, was dismissed. Alexj2002 17:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * 1) It is stable.
 * 2) It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * a Pass/Fail:

Summary
A few things as to why I've placed this article on hold: I feel I'm being maybe a bit harsh in some respects, but I'm too easily confused by how this article runs. Issues above should be addressed/contended by 5th January, 2007, or it will be failed. Good luck and thanks for your work! Mouse Nightshirt 14:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The prose is not great at all. It's confusing and doesn't always flow that well. The Pre-race section is quite hard to follow, and would especially be so for someone not familiar with the topic of Formula 1.
 * The Race section could be broken up a bit as it is ungainly and difficult to follow.
 * The article should also mention that the race was full of high drama not often seen in Formula 1. Here was Schumacher trying to win a championship for Ferrari, going up against the son of Ferrari legend Gilles Villeneuve. The two of them were racing flat out out for 48 laps before Schumacher rammed Villeneuve at the Dry Sac corner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk • contribs).
 * The Post-Race section could possibly be broken up into subsections as to split the professional/team response from the media response, to make it less intimidating.
 * 4.a has only been violated in a minor fashion due to the statement, "Therefore the laps could be seen as a true comparison between cars, and this indicated the performance of Villeneuve's Williams and Schumacher's Ferrari were identical." - could be seen as a true comparison by who? Could this not also indicate that Schumacher was a superior driver in an inferior car? Probably best removed.
 * True. Then again, the Ferrari was quicker than the Williams on the slower tracks all season long, and Jerez was not a particularly quick track. The Williams team had a huge advantage in that Jerez was one of their regular test facilities, while Ferrari preferred to test on their own in that era. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.87.230.199 (talk • contribs).
 * Although lack of images does not exclude GAs, I think the article would benefit from having a few more images related to the topic.
 * Thanks for the notice on my talkpage and for having a look at the article. I'd much rather issues be raised and the article be improved as a result than recieve GA status for an article with problems. I'll try and address the points raised asap. Alexj2002 19:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think 4a's been addressed by removing the sentence. I've split the Race & Post-Race sections into subsections to try and clarify things. That leaves just the prose to be improved (and images if anything suitable can be found. Alexj2002 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * After having gone through your edits and re-read the article a few times, I think the article has reached GA standard and therefore has been passed. The prose, although essentially the same, has been clarified to non-experts and works much better in the current format of subheadings. I would suggest that it's still worked on to provide even better clarity for the benefit of WP, but I believe it fulfils the criteria as set out in WP:GA?. Thanks Alexj2002 for your hard work on improving this article! Mouse Nightshirt 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Oops! Thought it had been 2 days already, only been one, has to stay on hold for another day. Sorry! Mouse Nightshirt 19:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Lampman (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Collusion allegations
Detail on the allegations that McLaren and Williams colluded to fix the results belong in the section on 'Collusion Allegations'. Someone had inserted the allegations, unsourced and stated as fact rather than an allegation, into the section on the conclusion of the race. Fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.90.185 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BAD LINK There link for Pedro Pacheco, mayor of Jerez who allegedly disrupted the podium ceremony, is wrong. It leads to a football player with the same name who is quite a different person. There does not seem to exist a Wikipedia article for Mr Pacheco the mayor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.188.136.56 (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Frentzen strategy
the williams strategy used for frentzen is excellent and it should be mentioned especially if fontana has a section

frentzen was fueled to run a longer first stint so he could have more flexibility, and after letting villeneuve past in the opening part, frenten slows up his pace deliberately with the goal to get himself into a position a few seconds ahead of the leaders, so lets say if a pitstop took 25 seconds frentzen would have to get about 20 seconds behind the leaders when they were to pit

and thats exactly how it played out, frentzen was ahead of schumacher who was a few seconds ahead of JV and he held him back to villeneuve, as soon as villeneuve was right behind him then frentzen suddenly increased his pace and drove away from schumacher before he had to pit again

this is all just my opinion of how they worked his strategy, but i think its clear to see if anyone rewatches the race with this in mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.63.190 (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)