petty bickering about a racing incident that happened 10 years ago thread

[PolePosition_1]

Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

Theres a difference between being ultra competitive and unsporting.

The basic principles of being competitive lie in competition. To win you have to beat your competition.

Being unsporting, you unfairingly ridding or gaining advantage over your competition in order to win.

So criticise me as much as you like for standing by my values, but I'll never agree and accept unsporting behaviour in F1.

In same way I'm sure most of you would agree an athlete in olympics should be disqualified if taking drugs or tripping over a competitor. Its unsporting. But it seems for some this should be accepted in F1.

[Knock-on]

Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

That's fine but it's wrong for people to claim there was no intention.

If someone says to me "yeah, OK, he knew that he would lose the place as his car was damaged so he made sure they both didn't finish" then I would at least have respect for the person being honest about it. I may have strong opinions about the incident in question but that's different.

[wedge]

And yeah, Hill was previously 4 odd seconds behind. Yet comes from nowhere because of the speed difference. What Hill meant to do? Come to a standstill and drive behind MS, or go for the inside? Common sense would suggest go for inside.

I honestly cannot understand how people can honestly say MS was in the right on this subject.

I'm not saying Schumi was completely in the right. It was a racing incident because there's different arguments for and against Hill/Schumi.

It does appear Hill was in the wrong. At first glance its as if he punted Schumi off!

Senna went for the inside at Suzuka 1990. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was in the right (pun not intended) because there was known malicious intent. If Senna kept his mouth shut would he still gotten away with it?

That's fine but it's wrong for people to claim there was no intention.

If someone says to me "yeah, OK, he knew that he would lose the place as his car was damaged so he made sure they both didn't finish" then I would at least have respect for the person being honest about it. I may have strong opinions about the incident in question but that's different.

I think (and it is a theory that some prominent talking-heads have also suggested) that if Michael had a weakness, it was in his split-second moments of judgement.

I do not believe it was premeditated, as I don't believe Jerez 97 was the result of a masterplan, and I don't believe that Schumacher had a moral issue with turning in at that moment purely because he was in racing mode.

To crucify somebody for something premediated, as a believe Senna at Suzuka 90 was (don't have to believe it, he admitted as much) is one thing, but I never thought Michael deliberately carried out any of his controversial moments behind the wheel with the mindset that "this is wrong, but feck it"...I think it was more "Feck! What Can I Do?" panic than evidence of a dark, calculating soul.

It was not pretty, but I really don't believe that in that moment Michael had the ability to remove himself from the instant and think "oh no, best not".

Somebody with that fierce competitive instinct cannot just take time-out until after the event.

If you recall, he was genuinely surprised by the feelings of resentment against him after Jerez 97....which, while in no way endorsing them, does for me make it clear that it wasn't the act of a totally unscrupulous bxxxxxd that many have claimed it was. Same applies to Adelaide 94.

[PolePosition_1]

I think (and it is a theory that some prominent talking-heads have also suggested) that if Michael had a weakness, it was in his split-second moments of judgement.

I do not believe it was premeditated, as I don't believe Jerez 97 was the result of a masterplan, and I don't believe that Schumacher had a moral issue with turning in at that moment purely because he was in racing mode.

To crucify somebody for something premediated, as a believe Senna at Suzuka 90 was (don't have to believe it, he admitted as much) is one thing, but I never thought Michael deliberately carried out any of his controversial moments behind the wheel with the mindset that "this is wrong, but feck it"...I think it was more "Feck! What Can I Do?" panic than evidence of a dark, calculating soul.

It was not pretty, but I really don't believe that in that moment Michael had the ability to remove himself from the instant and think "oh no, best not".

Somebody with that fierce competitive instinct cannot just take time-out until after the event.

If you recall, he was genuinely surprised by the feelings of resentment against him after Jerez 97....which, while in no way endorsing them, does for me make it clear that it wasn't the act of a totally unscrupulous bxxxxxd that many have claimed it was. Same applies to Adelaide 94.

Me neither, in no way am I suggesting he pre-planned all of this. Adelaide clip, that corner when they hit, in full speed we are talking 1 second max!

Can I take it you believe that Schumacher drove into Hill (or defended) knowhing he was about to lose the title?

[wedge]

Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.

Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.

Despite his criticisms on Schumi, DC said he slightly regrets not being more selfish, ignoring team orders. Apparantly after the chequered flag at Adelaide 1998 he said "I'm effing finished doing charity work" over the radio.

[555-04Q2]

1: Ok, my bad, car was fully legal when racing, it had illegal parts on it such as traction control, which was fully functional, but they never used it.....

2: Hill was in the inside, Schumacher kept on racing line despite knowing Hill was on inside and had a damaged car.

Make that what you want, but to me thats pretty unsporting attitude to take. I've messed up, damaged my car, may as well take out my opponent.

1. Fact. The car was legal.

2. Watch the replay. Hill drove into the side of Michael. How does Michael drive into Hill when he is in front of Hill Now Michael into Jacques 1997, that was Michael driving into someone !!!

[PolePosition_1]

I'm not saying Schumi was completely in the right. It was a racing incident because there's different arguments for and against Hill/Schumi.

It does appear Hill was in the wrong. At first glance its as if he punted Schumi off!

Senna went for the inside at Suzuka 1990. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was in the right (pun not intended) because there was known malicious intent. If Senna kept his mouth shut would he still gotten away with it?

Who do you support?

Can I take it you believe that Schumacher drove into Hill (or defended) knowhing he was about to lose the title?

No, because that's not what I'm saying.

I don't think that, in that split-second, Michael had any other thought than "turn in".

I do not believe he was doing it with the knowledge that he was about to lose the title if he didn't.

I don't think he was capable of making judgements in moments like that. That is the 'weakness' oh his that I'm referring to.

I know from my own (much, much lesser level) racing that I'm more inclined, having made a mistake (and do I make them!) for my first and only reaction to be to get back on line and hold the position than think "I know this will feck him up too".

[PolePosition_1]

1. Fact. The car was legal.

2. Watch the replay. Hill drove into the side of Michael. How does Michael drive into Hill when he is in front of Hill Now Michael into Jacques 1997, that was Michael driving into someone !!!

I've already said.

1: the car was legal. It had illegal components in it which were fully functioning, but they never used it ...make of that what you want. Personally I don't see point in having a system in the car if you not going to use it. But each to their own.

2: Hill was in the inside. Michael kept on racing line knowing he had a damaged car, and driving at a much slower speed than Hill. Hill was on the inside, so of course technically he went into Michael, but Hill had the right of way. MS was driving much slower in a damaged car, you don't defend until collision when your in that position.