Michael Schumacher returns to F1 *confirmed* [Archive]

Robinho

23rd December 2009, 12:01

as i posted in the Ferrari fans thread, i'm fantastically excited to see him back, i think parts of his last season was some of his best, i am of the opinion he mellowed a little towards the end of his pervious stint and some of his drives were exceptional, Brazil especially. i'm intrigued to see if he still has it, and even more so to see how the new Merc/Brawn performs, given the platform of this years car, and the chance to correct the compromises made on the car at the start of last season. IMO if they are anywhere near the front MS will fight for race wins and potentially a title - that would be a great story regardless of what i felt for him earlier in his career.

i also think it closes the book nicely on his career finishing up with Mercedes after his earlier associtaion with them despite never having previously competed with them in F1, its like its unfinished business, almost repyaing a favour.

part of me thinks he could be amazing, but part of me wants him to be competitive, but ultimately not able to put one over on the current crop.

either way i can't see it being more than one year, so even if he comes and kicks ass, i'm not worried about a period of long term domination, like the one that turned me off him last time round

Valve Bounce

23rd December 2009, 12:08

MS - "no other combination I think I would want to work with... Myself and Ross have been through good and bad times and I can't wait"

Interesting statement, perhaps Luca has said some personal things we don't know about? Who knows but great to see him back.. :)

Now I feel sorry for poor Nico. :eek:

Sonic

23rd December 2009, 12:37

Now I feel sorry for poor Nico. :eek:

Nah. This is an amazing chance for Nico; if he gets near the great man (or dare we say if beat him once or twice) Nico could become a superstar.

Also it would seem (at first glance anyway) that there is no official number two so Mike is gonna have to beat Nico fair and square.

Robinho

23rd December 2009, 12:52

Nah. This is an amazing chance for Nico; if he gets near the great man (or dare we say if beat him once or twice) Nico could become a superstar.

Also it would seem (at first glance anyway) that there is no official number two so Mike is gonna have to beat Nico fair and square.

i disagree, i think its a no win for Nico, unless he trounces Michael - If MS beats him then he's lost to a man whos had a couple of years out, has a dodgy neck and is 41. if they are close then the same applies, why hasn't he managed to get the best of the old guy.

Michael will undoubtedly have lost a little of the old magic, it would be impossible for the couple of years to have not dulled his skills, albeit he'll still likely be well above average on the grid! but you'd expect the supposedly very quick and far younger guy to be able to take him over the course of the long season. i doubt that he will though and the onus will be on Rosberg failing rather than Michael being too good, after all Massa, when still improving, was getting pretty close to Scumacher and beating him on occasion in the last year he raced. anything less than that and i think Rosberges rep might be permanantly damaged

wedge

23rd December 2009, 13:45

Me too poor little bugger :p

Saying that, look how well Massa developed under his wing. It might improve Nico as a driver, who knows?

Massa reminds me of Francoise Cevert, both proteges of their respective team mates and eager to learn.

Really depends whether Nico wants to play protege or not and be like Barrichello and try do things his own way.

Sonic

23rd December 2009, 14:32

i disagree, i think its a no win for Nico, unless he trounces Michael - If MS beats him then he's lost to a man whos had a couple of years out, has a dodgy neck and is 41. if they are close then the same applies, why hasn't he managed to get the best of the old guy.

Michael will undoubtedly have lost a little of the old magic, it would be impossible for the couple of years to have not dulled his skills, albeit he'll still likely be well above average on the grid! but you'd expect the supposedly very quick and far younger guy to be able to take him over the course of the long season. i doubt that he will though and the onus will be on Rosberg failing rather than Michael being too good, after all Massa, when still improving, was getting pretty close to Scumacher and beating him on occasion in the last year he raced. anything less than that and i think Rosberges rep might be permanantly damaged

Fair enough. I guess it depends on which side of the fence you sit. I'm a Nico fan and as such I believe that Nico will win his first GP early next season and he'll beat MS to do so.

N. Jones

23rd December 2009, 14:32

Wow, he's going to be 41 in 2010. Is this really a wise move?
I'll say it - I don't like the guy. If he wants to race so be it but there aren't many sports were a 40-something is still competitive.

UltimateDanGTR

23rd December 2009, 14:36

Me too poor little bugger :p

Saying that, look how well Massa developed under his wing. It might improve Nico as a driver, who knows?

hopefully you would be right.

fantastic news i think. F1 2010: 4 world champs. 13 teams. Merecedes. Ferrari. Lotus. The return of sauber. Mclaren. Hamilton. Button. Alonso. Massa. Webber. Vettel. Kubica. Schumacher. Rosberg. No refuelling. low fuel qualifying. 19 races. ONE WINNER.

2010 is gonna the most exciting F1 championship since 2008. :D

DexDexter

23rd December 2009, 14:41

Great news for F1! I wasn't the biggest fan of Michael during his first career but I'll be cheering him on next year.

Sonic

23rd December 2009, 14:52

One of the most interesting aspects of this is that the deal is for three years. So if MS is still super humanly fast he could retire as a ten times WDC at the end of 2012. Although not exactly likely.

mac853

23rd December 2009, 16:01

I don't believe this old man could still have the same strength as in moment of Ferrari.
Don't forget, what Nigel Mansell did in Mclaren, after leave from US.

Robinho

23rd December 2009, 16:07

I don't believe this old man could still have the same strength as in moment of Ferrari.
Don't forget, what Nigel Mansell did in Mclaren, after leave from US.

didn't a 41 year old Mansell win a race for Williams in a brief stint after Senna was killed?

Sonic

23rd December 2009, 16:42

didn't a 41 year old Mansell win a race for Williams in a brief stint after Senna was killed?

Indeed he did - adelaide '94 (he also claimed pole). The '95 Mac was a dog and Nigel lost his motivation very quickly - not through a lack of speed anymore.

OutRun

23rd December 2009, 16:48

I'm interested to see how he'll perform. I've never been a fan but he'll be driving for the team I support.

For the first time in a long time we'll have proper F1 racing with slick tires and no refueling. Pole position in Bahrain is looking like an epic battle.

maximilian

23rd December 2009, 16:54

A great holiday present for Formula 1. I am looking forward to it. I always rooted against him during his "evil" years at Ferrari, but I respect the man, and I think his return will be fabulous to watch, and this time he's driving MY marque, so I'll be supporting him and Nico.

I would like to officially thank my toilet for providing me with the vision this would happen before anyone else knew! :D

bblocker68

23rd December 2009, 16:59

I'm a Ferrari fan first, so:

I hated him at Benetton.
I loved him at Ferrari.
I'll ????? him at Mercedes???

It's great to see him come back, as long he doesn't emulate Michael Jordan's career with the Washington Wizards. I don't think he will. If his skills deteriorate a bit, it still wouldn't translate the same as it would in the NBA.

This has to be the deepest field in 2 (3?) decades. WOO!!!!!

Roamy

23rd December 2009, 17:05

I find this very interesting. I think Merc better sign a very capable reserve driver. In the event he does not do well I expect him to bolt straight away.

F1boat

23rd December 2009, 17:07

Me too poor little bugger :p

Saying that, look how well Massa developed under his wing. It might improve Nico as a driver, who knows?

Yes. Nico will improve a lot under Michael's wing IMO. But I keep my fingers crossed for Michael. I hope that he will be competitive, but for him to return and Merc to by Brawn GP, maybe they feel that the car is quite special. I keep my fingers crossed for them. For next year I will support him and Jenson, most likely.
It will be a great year.

Garry Walker

23rd December 2009, 17:09

Great news :up:

Malbec

23rd December 2009, 17:18

Wonderful news but its one hell of a risk, after all Brawn is not Ferrari or McLaren and they will likely not have an advantage in 2010 like they did in 2009. He risks tarnishing his reputation as being the best if he's fighting for midpoint finishes at every race because of the car.

Still I suspect that he cares little for his reputation as its his love of racing itself that seems to be drawing him back, good luck to the guy.

Sonic

23rd December 2009, 17:21

I find this very interesting. I think Merc better sign a very capable reserve driver. In the event he does not do well I expect him to bolt straight away.

Indeed. Or if Brawn/MGP have that difficult "second album" phase a produce a problematic car I should think the Mojo will just drain right out of him.

That said my gut (not my toilet Max! ;) ) feels that Merc will have a stonking car and MS will be proper fired up to win.

F1boat

23rd December 2009, 17:25

IMO it is unlikely that the Merc will have a bad car. Usually the cars of the teams in which Ross operates become better with time - like wine. The 1995 Benetton was better than the one in 1994. The Ferrari team improved steadily between 1996 and 2002. Also, for Merc to buy the team and for Michael to return, IMO the parties must have felt pretty confident in the car.

gloomyDAY

23rd December 2009, 17:46

What a nice Christmas present!

Thanks Mercedes and good luck to Mike.

Mia 01

23rd December 2009, 17:48

I´m sure MS will beat LH (literally) next year with ease.

FA, ha ha, he´s already beaten by Luca and Domi.

Roamy

23rd December 2009, 17:50

F1boat

23rd December 2009, 18:10

it can be a bit of a gamble- my understanding is that the cars will change again including the baseline so one could get it right and it may not necessarily be brawn. Red Bull I think is advancing quite well and who know what Ferrari will bring but with Alonso I suspect development will be quite good.

There is always a chance that predictions are wrong, but from what I heard Brawn started development of the new car after GP of Turkey and Red Bull were giving all to the 2009 challenger till the very end. This is one major disadvantage. IMO McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari will be all stronger than RBR.

Mia 01

23rd December 2009, 18:19

There is always a chance that predictions are wrong, but from what I heard Brawn started development of the new car after GP of Turkey and Red Bull were giving all to the 2009 challenger till the very end. This is one major disadvantage. IMO McLaren, Mercedes and Ferrari will be all stronger than RBR.

Nope, but MS will be that.

DexDexter

23rd December 2009, 18:25

Indeed he did - adelaide '94 (he also claimed pole). The '95 Mac was a dog and Nigel lost his motivation very quickly - not through a lack of speed anymore.

I don't know, Häkkinen outqualified him comfortably in the races Mansell took part. Anyway, Mansell /Schumacher is not a good comparison, since the merits of the two drivers are not comparable at all.

23rd December 2009, 18:33

Anyway, Mansell /Schumacher is not a good comparison, since the merits of the two drivers are not comparable at all.

For once, I agree.

Mansell and Mclaren was a forced marriage, at the behest of Phillip Morris. Ron Dennis never rated or liked Mansell, but had to sign him to keep Marlboro happy as, at the time, Hakkinen was not a big name. It was never going to work.

Schumacher & Ross Brawn aren't a forced marriage.

ioan

23rd December 2009, 19:09

i also think it closes the book nicely on his career finishing up with Mercedes after his earlier associtaion with them despite never having previously competed with them in F1, its like its unfinished business, almost repyaing a favour.

He's got no favor to return to Mercedes.
He's doing it because of his relationship with Ross Brawn.

ioan

23rd December 2009, 19:10

I'm a Ferrari fan first, so:

I hated him at Benetton.
I loved him at Ferrari.
I'll ????? him at Mercedes???

Same here.

I'll support him at Mercedes, I would have supported him even at McLaren, but now with only Mercedes I can live with this situation easily.

Mark in Oshawa

23rd December 2009, 19:47

Mikey will find it tougher sledding now more than when he had the full weight of Ferrari behind him. It could be VERY interesting....

Sonic

23rd December 2009, 20:41

He's got no favor to return to Mercedes.

Schumacher has spoken at some length that does indeed feel a debt to Mercedes. How much is true and how much is corporate speak I don't know but I'll see if I can find a link and post it.

D28

23rd December 2009, 20:54

I am somewhat surprised by the announcement, time will tell if it is the right decision. Maybe he wishes to go out on a winning note, more likely he simply misses the competition. His age should not be a detriment, but the 3 year layoff could be. Jack Brabham was ultra-competitive at 44 winning once, and scoring 3 other podiums. He was in a solid 3rd position in his last ever race when the Cosworth blew.

Firstgear

23rd December 2009, 21:29

.....time will tell if it is the right decision.
The right decision for who?

I suppose if you're talking about Mercedes, then yes.

But not if you're talking about MS. If he wants to race, let him race. He may better his stats, or not. Obviously he's there because he wants to compete.

As a fan....I like Kimi, but MS ....not so much. Still, I'd rather see a motivated Michael behind the wheel, than an uninterested Kimi.

The big bonus is that Michael driving against Ferrari will give us all the chance to see ioan talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. :D

ioan

23rd December 2009, 21:41

The right decision for who?

I suppose if you're talking about Mercedes, then yes.

But not if you're talking about MS. If he wants to race, let him race. He may better his stats, or not. Obviously he's there because he wants to compete.

As a fan....I like Kimi, but MS ....not so much. Still, I'd rather see a motivated Michael behind the wheel, than an uninterested Kimi.

The big bonus is that Michael driving against Ferrari will give us all the chance to see ioan talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time. :D

I'll keep the swearing for myself, so no bonus for you.

Hondo

23rd December 2009, 22:41

"I think the day he hangs up his helmet people will just forget him."

-Jacques ( no ride, no offers, no...sigh ) Villeneuve about Michael Schumacher's retirement in 2006.

wedge

24th December 2009, 00:13

For once, I agree.

Mansell and Mclaren was a forced marriage, at the behest of Phillip Morris. Ron Dennis never rated or liked Mansell, but had to sign him to keep Marlboro happy as, at the time, Hakkinen was not a big name. It was never going to work.

Schumacher & Ross Brawn aren't a forced marriage.

Schumi is in better shape than Mansell was in 1995 :D

Who knows whether it was forced or not. Both Haug and Schumi made references of chasing the signature and owing something back to M-B.

nigelred5

24th December 2009, 00:57

"I think the day he hangs up his helmet people will just forget him."

-Jacques ( no ride, no offers, no...sigh ) Villeneuve about Michael Schumacher's retirement in 2006.

Who forgot about who? Villenueve's not done crap since winning the title and teams sure noticed that. Maybe JV wishes MS would be forgotten.
Like him or loathe him, one doesn't forget a 7x WDC

Valve Bounce

24th December 2009, 02:14

Schumacher has spoken at some length that does indeed feel a debt to Mercedes. How much is true and how much is corporate speak I don't know but I'll see if I can find a link and post it.

No more than Mark Webber who flew with Mercedes. :eek:

Valve Bounce

24th December 2009, 02:16

Roamy

24th December 2009, 02:18

If JV were to bring a big big sponsor he would get the Renault seat. Short of the Stephan GP is the only hope and would probably be the best seat for him.

ArrowsFA1

24th December 2009, 08:19

I for one didn't think this was going to happen, but now it has I'm going to be fascinated to see how MS does after three years away.

I think he probably retired a year or two too soon in his own mind, and his love of racing and competition obviously hasn't gone anywhere. Niki Lauda did much the same and came back to win a championship so you never know what could happen! The prospect of MS in a competitive Mercedes going up against the 'new generation' will be great to watch.

Sonic

24th December 2009, 08:56

No more than Mark Webber who flew with Mercedes. :eek:

LOL

Sonic

24th December 2009, 09:01

We also had a situation where Mercedes-Benz gave me the chance to enter F1 and over the years it was never possible [to race for them]. Finally now a combination of Ross and Mercedes makes it possible to work together and I am happy to be able to give something to Mercedes after the early days

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80656

jas123f1

24th December 2009, 11:53

Same here.

I'll support him at Mercedes, I would have supported him even at McLaren, but now with only Mercedes I can live with this situation easily.

WHAT????
So even you will leave Ferrari now? :D
What kinds of tifosi yuo really are? Are you going to support Mercedes now :) - did even you get enough of Ferrari? Ross Brawn, Jean Todt, Michael Schumacher gave up Kimi was kicked out and what Chris Dyer will do next year ?? - I hope he goes to Mercedes ... he too. ;)

Luca The Boss of Ferrari and their new savior Alonso shall make it now at Ferrari - do you don't give them your unconditional support now when they really need it.

Now when Felipe is without his big brother and advisor, I think it make easier for Alonso to beat him.

However it’s fan - same time when Ferrari using Santander money for getting out Kimi and now when Felipe’s chances are getting down a bit - when Schumi quit – get Ferrari an unexpected “adversary” in Schumi – in a Mercedes. If Schumi beat Ferrari next year I will forgive him all his mistakes in the past..

:)

jens

24th December 2009, 13:22

Well, those news really don't make me as excited as it seems to make many people - "Oh, Schumacher is back, so fantastic, it's gonna be incredible, etc. If it was the Schumacher at his peak, it would be great stuff. If Schumacher had changed teams at his prime, it was huge news. But this is a different Schumacher, who turns 41 years old soon and is possibly unfit. Not something to be overly excited about. Among no other drivers aiming for an F1 seat (even oldies like Badoer, DLR, Villeneuve, etc) we have heard news that they needed to go through medical check to clarify whether they are fit enough to race. And in such age it may not be that easy to regain 100% fitness again. I wouldn't rule out that MS might still not reach the grid in Bahrain - maybe he will complain about neck/something else during winter tests and there it goes... Also I suspect the hype-levels will simply go through the roof before comeback and 'realization'...

There have been even suggestions about a 3-year deal between MS and Mercedes! Anyway, maybe the good side of the whole saga is that it may at least give a good answer to a perennial question in racing circles - how much does age affect driving at the top level and deteriorate performances as a result?

24th December 2009, 13:43

WHAT????
So even you will leave Ferrari now? :D
What kinds of tifosi yuo really are? Are you going to support Mercedes now :) - did even you get enough of Ferrari? Ross Brawn, Jean Todt, Michael Schumacher gave up Kimi was kicked out and what Chris Dyer will do next year ?? - I hope he goes to Mercedes ... he too. ;)

It's called respect for a man who achieved hitherto unequalled success for the Scuderia.

Admittedly, that is a concept Kimi fans were always going to struggle to understand.

jas123f1

24th December 2009, 20:00

It's called respect for a man who achieved hitherto unequalled success for the Scuderia.

Admittedly, that is a concept Kimi fans were always going to struggle to understand.

I think you are right - however i never understood the greatness to use Rubens during several years as a lapdog to Schumi – but as a Kimi fan i am - maybe it’s understandable? :D

Roamy

24th December 2009, 21:45

well one thing you don't have to worry about is Nico pulling over for MS. If he gets in front of him he won't be pulling a 'Lapdog"

Valve Bounce

24th December 2009, 21:45

Well, those news really don't make me as excited as it seems to make many people - "Oh, Schumacher is back, so fantastic, it's gonna be incredible, etc. If it was the Schumacher at his peak, it would be great stuff.

You've gotta look at this with a positive aspect: If SchM starts to win again and keeps jumping up onto the podium, half the forum will simply be delighted with his great comeback.

BUT if he is beaten by the likes of Bunsen, Rosberg, Kubica, as well as the two guys from Red Bull, two from Ferrari and Hamilton, then the other half of the forum will be over the moon.

Either way, it's a win - win situation as it will give everyone something to get excited over next season.

So! just to jump the gun a little, HAPPY NEW YEAR

Valve Bounce

24th December 2009, 21:48

well one thing you don't have to worry about is Nico pulling over for MS. If he gets in front of him he won't be pulling a 'Lapdog"

They will simply get Tad to hack into his Engine Control system and select the MOVE OVER function. :p :

Roamy

24th December 2009, 21:50

probably closer than you think - watch for january movements

airshifter

24th December 2009, 21:50

You've gotta look at this with a positive aspect: If SchM starts to win again and keeps jumping up onto the podium, half the forum will simply be delighted with his great comeback.

BUT if he is beaten by the likes of Bunsen, Rosberg, Kubica, as well as the two guys from Red Bull, two from Ferrari and Hamilton, then the other half of the forum will be over the moon.

Either way, it's a win - win situation as it will give everyone something to get excited over next season.

So! just to jump the gun a little, HAPPY NEW YEAR

For me it's a win win situation regardless. Though I have great respect for the driving abilities of MS it was the entire package at Ferrari that made him so sucessful. Now not all of that will be behind him, and just as important now team orders are banned.

I think he will rise to the top again if the car is capable, but it won't break my heart if he doesn't. It would simply prove to me that the talent level in F1 has risen quite a lot.

Valve Bounce

25th December 2009, 01:57

I don't believe that most people realise the full impact of the return of SchM together with the return of Mercedes Benz as a full racing team to F1 after more than half a century.

Suddenly Mercedes owners (and that includes zillions of taxis worldwide) have gained bragging rights: their car is now associated with an F1 team led by the famous Mr Schumacher. :)

And biggest losers will be rival luxury BMW car owners who have not only lost all bragging rights, but now have to suffer the sneers of rival Mercedes owners all over the world. Just imagine these poor guys driving past their neighbor who owns a Mercedes after Mercedes have scored a 1,2 in a Grand Prix. :(

Biggest winner of all, of course, is that demented dwarf Bernie who will rake in extra zillions out of this double comeback to F1.

And to think this guy is coming back to F1 for a measly 7 million euros. Gosh Mercedes will make that up in a single day worldwide even before the F1 season starts. The mind boggles. It is truly Happy Christmas for Mercedes owners.

CNR

25th December 2009, 06:41

entire package at Ferrari that made him so sucessful.

i think in some ways it is the other way around michael played a good (BIG) part in getting Ferrari back on top

you need to think back a few years to 1995

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/mar/02/features.sportmonthly2

In 1996 he joined Ferrari, then a moribund team, struggling to live up to its past, but in time Schumacher (and an influx of engineers and designers) transformed it into a title-winning machine.
In 2000, after 21 barren years, Ferrari boasted the world drivers' champion again -

After 1995, Schumacher moved to Ferrari along with Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and 11 other key figures from his two championship winning seasons with Benetton

F1boat

25th December 2009, 10:02

It would simply prove to me that the talent level in F1 has risen quite a lot.

IMO it would prove that even MS can not beat age.

52Paddy

25th December 2009, 15:31

I've mixed feelings about Schumacher's return. I do like Schumacher, I think his F1 record is spectacular. But this return is kind of risky. I do personally believe that Schumacher is in much better shape than the likes of Mansell and Alan Jones were when they returned after a few years sabbatical. But its not a 100% safe guard against him humiliating himself. I guess January testing will make things more clear. I have full faith and confidence in him to do a good job - I just can't help but feel a little concerned for him if he is off the pace considerably. If people see first hand that he has "lost it", his reputation would be somewhat tainted. Then again, if he came back and was competitive, I guess it would improve his reputation further...

However, having mentioned Mansell and Jones, it would be unfair not to mention Jack Brabham and Niki Lauda, who succeeded when they came back to the sport. For the moment though...great news!

ioan

25th December 2009, 18:00

gloomyDAY

25th December 2009, 18:44

I wonder if Mike has contacted Jo.

D28

25th December 2009, 20:59

However, having mentioned Mansell and Jones, it would be unfair not to mention Jack Brabham and Niki Lauda, who succeeded when they came back to the sport. For the moment though...great news!

I'm not sure what you refer to with Brabham, he never left F1 except in 1970 for good, still at the top of his game (See my post above). He did sit out the odd race when Ickx was the top shoe in 1969, but that's all.

Daika

25th December 2009, 23:18

wedge

26th December 2009, 00:28

"At some point the season is going to get very tough, going to get unpleasant and it might bring back memories of why you retired in the first place," Hill said on BBC Radio 5 Live.

I Find it hilarious that past drivers comments on Schumacher returning to F1. For example Damon Hill, "at some point in the season it is going to be very tough". Where did he gets the wisdom? have he been in that position before and why would a 7-time world champion not have that kind of knowledge.

Happy that he is back, i used to watch every race, all those laps, waking up early when the are racing in Asia, Australia. Nowadays i don't mind not watching.

Damon was re-iterating some of his own experience.

Remember how it all ended rather messily for Hill in 1999. He was losing motivation and he was unsure how to handle his retirement. He was going to retire mid-season, changed his mind and saw out the rest of the year.

I think it shows how he regretted making those decisions.

I've mixed feelings about Schumacher's return. I do like Schumacher, I think his F1 record is spectacular. But this return is kind of risky. I do personally believe that Schumacher is in much better shape than the likes of Mansell and Alan Jones were when they returned after a few years sabbatical. But its not a 100% safe guard against him humiliating himself. I guess January testing will make things more clear. I have full faith and confidence in him to do a good job - I just can't help but feel a little concerned for him if he is off the pace considerably. If people see first hand that he has "lost it", his reputation would be somewhat tainted. Then again, if he came back and was competitive, I guess it would improve his reputation further...

However, having mentioned Mansell and Jones, it would be unfair not to mention Jack Brabham and Niki Lauda, who succeeded when they came back to the sport. For the moment though...great news!

I too have similar thoughts but I'm not worried about him making an idiot of himself.

Should've left whilst he was at the top of his game ie. when he was ruthless. There's not much left he has left to prove except age discrimination.

The kids today are much more hungry than Schumi are. As Alonso once referenced that move into 130R: "I knew he had two kids"

airshifter

26th December 2009, 04:28

i think in some ways it is the other way around michael played a good (BIG) part in getting Ferrari back on top

you need to think back a few years to 1995

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/mar/02/features.sportmonthly2

After 1995, Schumacher moved to Ferrari along with Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne and 11 other key figures from his two championship winning seasons with Benetton

I didn't mean to imply that MS wasn't a big part of that "whole team" package. With his abilities to drive and encourage the team, and the various other talents involved it became that package.

I still think that the team orders changes might affect them. Though legal at the time, and MS usually IMHO being worthy of #1 status, they will now have to at least attempt to hide any bias in race strategy. I'm sure Ross will manage, but not as easily as before.

F1boat

26th December 2009, 09:19

The kids today are much more hungry than Schumi are. As Alonso once referenced that move into 130R: "I knew he had two kids"

There was an old Scandinavian myth in which even Thor, the mighty god of thunder, lost a battle against an old witch, which was actually time itself. So if Michael is not on par with the young guns, well, even he couldn't defeat time. But imagine how embarassing for the "kids" will be if an old man comes and schools them. And actually I can see it. I know that there is immence fascination with some of the "kids" here in this forum, but Montoya was also hungry and dangerous and was once hailed as a great driver and future champion. Michael faced very tough drivers in his career - Hakkinen was amazing in his prime. Even drivers like RS and Coulthard, now considered weak, was once hailed as possible champions. It's all about perception, really. For example while I find Vettel to be a very fast, talented driver, I think that he is greatly overrated, he never made a good overtaking maneuvre in his best year so far, made too many mistakes and IMO is a bit arrogant. He reminds me of Montoya. We will see how he will develop. Alonso is of course a menace and a great driver, but he is not superhuman. When the car is not good, he can't do a thing. Lewis is really fascinating, but we will see how the new rules will affect him.
So I think that IF MS is fit and IF the car is good enough, there is no reason that he won't be able to challenge for wins and even the WDC. Remember, he has beaten many of the current stars and while there are new kids, some of his old and strong rivals are no more. And frankly I am not sure that Hamilton and Vettel are stronger rivals than Hakkinen and Montoya, for example.

26th December 2009, 10:00

I think you are right - however i never understood the greatness to use Rubens during several years as a lapdog to Schumi – but as a Kimi fan i am - maybe it’s understandable? :D

I'm surprised that you don't understand having a team-mate pulling over to let you win.....

....Interlagos 2007 mean anything to you?

Without Felipe pulling over, Kimi wouldn't have won the title.

52Paddy

26th December 2009, 18:45

I'm not sure what you refer to with Brabham, he never left F1 except in 1970 for good, still at the top of his game (See my post above). He did sit out the odd race when Ickx was the top shoe in 1969, but that's all.

Sorry, my mistake. I must have been mixing that up with the time he spent titleless between 1961 and 1966, when he eventually won for his own constructor.

26th December 2009, 20:57

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/80677

Class act.

The Greatest.

ioan

26th December 2009, 21:56

One more reason to support him even if he isn't driving a red F1 racer.

Valve Bounce

26th December 2009, 23:13

One more reason to support him even if he isn't driving a red F1 racer.

I don't think so. True Tifosi would never support a Benz, no matter who was driving it. You stay there to cheer the red cars home - they break down, you go home. End of story.

jas123f1

27th December 2009, 02:08

I'm surprised that you don't understand having a team-mate pulling over to let you win.....

....Interlagos 2007 mean anything to you?

Without Felipe pulling over, Kimi wouldn't have won the title.

Yes right - but Felipe did it first after he didn't have any chance to win the title - and Kimi did the same for Felipe 2008.. Nice..

But Rubens did it from the first race... every one knows it (except you?)

So, as you can see :) I understand very well..

:D

airshifter

27th December 2009, 02:36

Yes right - but Felipe did it first after he didn't have any chance to win the title - and Kimi did the same for Felipe 2008.. Nice..

But Rubens did it from the first race... every one knows it (except you?)

So, as you can see :) I understand very well..

:D

Rubens did it during a time when team orders were allowed, and openly used by the Ferrari team. Rubens was expected to do anything to elevate MS to the number 1 position, and then anything else possible to help bring the team the constructors championship.

Though Felipe and Kimi did help the other when appropriate, it wasn't something determined before the season started.

Valve Bounce

27th December 2009, 02:42

Rubens did it during a time when team orders were allowed, and openly used by the Ferrari team. Rubens was expected to do anything to elevate MS to the number 1 position, and then anything else possible to help bring the team the constructors championship.

.

Unfortunately for Rubens, nobody bothered to tell him. :D

jas123f1

27th December 2009, 02:55

One more reason to support him even if he isn't driving a red F1 racer.

I never forget how much you was speaking about the “REALLY tifosi mentality” – how they have “Ferrari” in their mind not drivers .. How drivers come and drivers go but Ferrari remain .. and the same do a really tifosi..

Now Schumacher will do everything to beat Ferrari .. to show them that Mercedes is better … that Germany is better than Italia, that they only had him as loan for big money.. that now he is at home and fighting for much smaller money against Ferrari.. Only because he want to do it.. without Ferrari politic or Rubens or Irvine or the Ferrari money .. he didn’t want to drive for Ferrari, not even for the big Santander money .. he wanted go home and same time show what it means to be a really tifosi (= Schumi fan)..

I hope you don’t mind, but I think you never was expecting that Schumi one day would drive in an other car than Ferrari and now he did it .. it’s fan .. I mean your dilemma..It was easier for me when Luca The Ferrari Boss kick out Kimi (Ferraris latest Champion) for Santander money because it was BIG money … but Schumacher left for a smaller amount only bacause he wanted..

:D

ioan

27th December 2009, 09:41

I never forget how much you was speaking about the “REALLY tifosi mentality” – how they have “Ferrari” in their mind not drivers .. How drivers come and drivers go but Ferrari remain .. and the same do a really tifosi..

Did I say somewhere that I will support MS over Ferrari?!

You must be very desperate to continuously twist my words just to try to make a point whatever that is.

I'll post it again so that you can read it several time and understand it:

I'll always first and foremost support Ferrari as I always did.
I will also support MS for what he did for Ferrari (like 5 WDC titles and 6 WCC titles).
Add to this a young driver like Vettel or Kobayashi.
And I will always support one of the F1 minions next year Sauber.

You see, being a tifoso is not exactly as single minded as you are.

27th December 2009, 10:33

It was easier for me when Luca The Ferrari Boss kick out Kimi (Ferraris latest Champion) for Santander money because it was BIG money

Except Kimi was kicked out for being a work-shy lay w-----r who didn't care.

Money had nothing to do with it.

27th December 2009, 10:40

I'll always first and foremost support Ferrari as I always did.

Amen.

I would add that, if Ferrari's drivers were to be beaten by anyone, I would hope it was Michael.

That would be a lot easier to accept than being beaten by a lazy driver with a couldn't-care attitude.

But since he's playing at Rallying because F1 is too hard for him, that's not likely.

27th December 2009, 10:46

Yes right - but Felipe did it first after he didn't have any chance to win the title - and Kimi did the same for Felipe 2008.. Nice..

But Rubens did it from the first race... every one knows it (except you?)

So, as you can see :) I understand very well..

:D

Evidently you understand feck all.

Either you don't believe in getting assistance from a team-mate or you do.

Picking and choosing when you do and when you don't is hypocritical.

jas123f1

27th December 2009, 12:10

Evidently you understand feck all.

Either you don't believe in getting assistance from a team-mate or you do.

Picking and choosing when you do and when you don't is hypocritical.

Joking apart – seriously speaking - do you really think that helping a team mate (and the team) when one’s own chances are zero is the same than helping your team mate from the first race until he is the champion (if he never will be it) and then possibly get a chance to fight for a own win - is the same?

Yes Felipe helped Kimi in the end of season 2007 and Kimi did the same for Felipe 2008 and even I was sorry for him when he did lose it in the last curve?
-----
But now Schumi is making everything he can, to beat Ferrari/Felipe - Alonso, and now you are going to keep your fingers crossed for ?? ..
Ferrari or Mercedes - wake up - they actually are fighting against each other.. Schumi/Nico driving Mercedes and Alonso/Felipe driving Ferrari.

I think Schumacher had a possibility even take a Ferrari seat, but he made a choice to drive a German car - at last. He get 7 million for the season - at Ferrari he should have a million /every race, but he tog the Mercedes seat.. not for money but ... as you can see .. Mercedes is more important for Schumi than Ferrari .. I think Fisi loves :heart: Ferrari more than Schumacher never did..
:s mokin:

Saint Devote

27th December 2009, 12:59

Yes Felipe helped Kimi in the end of season 2007 and Kimi did the same for Felipe 2008 and even I was sorry for him when he did lose it in the last curve?
-----
I think Schumacher had a possibility even take a Ferrari seat, but he made a choice to drive a German car - at last.

Mercedes is more important for Schumi than Ferrari .. I think Fisi loves :heart: Ferrari more than Schumacher never did..
:s mokin:

In 2008 it was mostly the Ferrari team that cost Massa the world title. They lost, and it was evidently shown in 2009, the cohesiveness and discipline that Schumacher and Brawn and Todt enforced was gone.

The question remains whether against a team such as Mclaren they can regain that. We have no idea what sort of team leader Alonso can be because at Renault he did not have to. Flavio was the core of that team and conducted it for Alonso.

Mercedes will benefit from Ross and Schumacher and bring the entire team up to that standard.

Adrian Newey is the principle asset at Red Bull - the uncertainty is Vettel - in 2009 he made too many mistakes when he did not start from pole position and there is no Ross Brawn to guide him.

The most stable team into 2010 is Mclaren, then Mercedes because of the addition now of Schumacher - the rest have uncertainties that have shown disrupts the flow.

It is a brave or foolish thing to do to underestimate Schumacher who is the greatest technical and analytical driver since the great Niki Lauda, the man who pioneered the approach, turned Ferrari around from an Italian comic opera team and led the Scuderia to championships.

Hondo

27th December 2009, 13:07

I don't know that driving a German car has as much to do with it as driving a Brawn car again does. Michaels been around the paddock and seen Ferrari doing silly things again. Over all Michael was superior over Rubens at Ferrari and I have no problem with Rubens being told to support Michael. If it bothered him that much, Rubens sure took his time about leaving.

Now I'm seeing stories where Brawn is being accused of letting Button go so Brawn could get Schumacher. Well, duhh. Show me a team out there that money being the same, wouldn't choose Schumacher over Button. I wouldn't even bother to answer those allegations.

F1boat

27th December 2009, 14:25

Adrian Newey is the principle asset at Red Bull

He is like a flawed genius - can made the best car or some awful abstract machine like the 2004 McLaren-Mercedes.

jas123f1

27th December 2009, 16:05

The question remains whether against a team such as Mclaren they can regain that. We have no idea what sort of team leader Alonso can be because at Renault he did not have to. Flavio was the core of that team and conducted it for Alonso.

Mercedes will benefit from Ross and Schumacher and bring the entire team up to that standard.

Adrian Newey is the principle asset at Red Bull - the uncertainty is Vettel - in 2009 he made too many mistakes when he did not start from pole position and there is no Ross Brawn to guide him.

Agreed - will see how Schumacher fix up his restart when the season begin – Nico don’t like to play the second fiddle – I heard .. and it's not writen in his contract like Rubens had..

But if Mercedes will stay before Ferrari in the constructions table in the end of the 2010 season I promise that I never more will say one negative word of Schumacher’s past.

I like Vettel because his manners with people and because i think he’s an honest guy (like Kimi) that’s the reason why I hope it's going well for him. But ok he can be better and I think he will - he's very talent, young and hungry to win... so even if I agree with you that Adrian Newey is very important for Red Bull – he is only one of many..

:s mokin:

27th December 2009, 18:50

Joking apart – seriously speaking - do you really think that helping a team mate (and the team) when one’s own chances are zero is the same than helping your team mate from the first race until he is the champion (if he never will be it) and then possibly get a chance to fight for a own win - is the same?

Accepting the help of a team-mate, whenever it is, is the issue.

When it came to the crunch, Kimi did the same as Michael.

There is no difference.

27th December 2009, 21:57

But Rubens did it from the first race... every one knows it

"The fastest guy will be the No.1 and that's always been the case wherever Michael has been,"

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/5606.html

Ruben's did it for that reason. Anything else would have been detrimental to the team. Only an idiot would allow that. Neither Jean Todt or Ross Brawn are idiots.

Valve Bounce

27th December 2009, 22:18

"The fastest guy will be the No.1 and that's always been the case wherever Michael has been,"

http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/5606.html

Ruben's did it for that reason. Anything else would have been detrimental to the team. Only an idiot would allow that. Neither Jean Todt or Ross Brawn are idiots.

How insightful. :rolleyes:
The only problem here is that nobody told Rubens what he was doing. :D

jas123f1

28th December 2009, 00:27

How insightful. :rolleyes:
The only problem here is that nobody told Rubens what he was doing. :D

Rubens will tell when his F1-carrier is over - we must wait.. a year or two .
I suspect his book will sell for millions.. ;) ..

jas123f1

28th December 2009, 00:38

Accepting the help of a team-mate, whenever it is, is the issue.

When it came to the crunch, Kimi did the same as Michael.

There is no difference.

Ok - I can see.. that you can't see.. the difference between to help your team mate when you shelf don't have any chance any more or have a team order to "help" your team mate from the beginning of the season every race until your team mate is the champion …

:s mokin:

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 00:42

Agreed - will see how Schumacher fix up his restart when the season begin – Nico don’t like to play the second fiddle – I heard .. and it's not writen in his contract like Rubens had..

But if Mercedes will stay before Ferrari in the constructions table in the end of the 2010 season I promise that I never more will say one negative word of Schumacher’s past.

I like Vettel because his manners with people and because i think he’s an honest guy (like Kimi) that’s the reason why I hope it's going well for him. But ok he can be better and I think he will - he's very talent, young and hungry to win... so even if I agree with you that Adrian Newey is very important for Red Bull – he is only one of many..

:s mokin:

Vettel has come far without guidance like Schumacher and Hamilton had from the start. At Red Bull if there was someone like Ross or Flavio it would harness his natural aggression and the incidents he tends to have would stop.

Nevertheless Vettel has been amazing and his ability to control a race from the front is Niki Lauda like.

His win at Monza in 2008 remains for me the most impressive drive I have seen since Schumacher in Spain in 1996. Imagine what he would do with good management.

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 00:54

Did I say somewhere that I will support MS over Ferrari?!

You must be very desperate to continuously twist my words just to try to make a point whatever that is.

I'll post it again so that you can read it several time and understand it:

I'll always first and foremost support Ferrari as I always did.
I will also support MS for what he did for Ferrari (like 5 WDC titles and 6 WCC titles).
Add to this a young driver like Vettel or Kobayashi.
And I will always support one of the F1 minions next year Sauber.

You see, being a tifoso is not exactly as single minded as you are.

A proper Tifosi supports NOBODY other than the Ferrari TEAM and they now look upon Schumacher as a traitor. Thats Tifosi.

Ever been to Monza and heard how they booed Niki Lauda when he drove for Mclaren? THATS Tifosi.

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 00:57

I don't think so. True Tifosi would never support a Benz, no matter who was driving it. You stay there to cheer the red cars home - they break down, you go home. End of story.

Correct. THATS Tifosi.

Valve Bounce

28th December 2009, 02:37

Rubens will tell when his F1-carrier is over - we must wait.. a year or two .
I suspect his book will sell for millions.. ;) ..

Are you sure Rubens will have figured it out within the next couple of years? :D

Valve Bounce

28th December 2009, 02:42

Accepting the help of a team-mate, whenever it is, is the issue.

When it came to the crunch, Kimi did the same as Michael.

There is no difference.

I'm only going to say this once: there is not the slightest similarity between Rubens being told to "move over" at Austria, and anything that Kimi or Massa has ever been involved in. So please, do not re-write history. :mad:

Roamy

28th December 2009, 06:16

28th December 2009, 08:53

I'm only going to say this once: there is not the slightest similarity between Rubens being told to "move over" at Austria, and anything that Kimi or Massa has ever been involved in. So please, do not re-write history. :mad:

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

Either you do not accept help from a team-mate or you do.

Kimi did.

If he had really been true to the claims of his fans, then he would have finished second and lost the championship.

But, unsurprisingly, he didn't bother with principles that day.

Nor should he....and neither should his holier-than-thou hypocritical fans and those who are Schumacher critics.

tmx

28th December 2009, 09:25

That is nonsense rational. I agree with Valve Bounce on this one.

Valve Bounce

28th December 2009, 09:30

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

Either you do not accept help from a team-mate or you do.

Kimi did.

If he had really been true to the claims of his fans, then he would have finished second and lost the championship.

But, unsurprisingly, he didn't bother with principles that day.

Nor should he....and neither should his holier-than-thou hypocritical fans and those who are Schumacher critics.

This is absolute nonsense. Rubens was ordered to move over for SchM very early in the season and when he himself had hopes of "being the pebble in SchM's shoe" and beating him regularly and even winning the championship himself. I don't know where you got this his holier-than-thou hypocritical fans from, because I am not a fan of Rubens. This incident was discussed in great detail here and your attempts to alter history is just that: rubbish.

I have been one of the most vocal SchM critics at the time, and made my views perfectly clear. I just don't want to dig up all the SchM misdeeds at this juncture simply because I think his return is a great shot in the arm to F1 for next season.

Saint Devote

28th December 2009, 10:25

Good people the Tifosi!!

Yes they are.

I have great affection for them remembering how they were and are towards my alltime favorite racing driver - Jody Scheckter.

tinchote

28th December 2009, 12:02

I'm only going to say this once: there is not the slightest similarity between Rubens being told to "move over" at Austria, and anything that Kimi or Massa has ever been involved in. So please, do not re-write history. :mad:

Hey Valve, then I assume you agree with me in despising the aussie-cheater Alan Jones, who was completely ok with his cheating team (Williams) telling his teammate to move over in the SECOND race of the season (Brazil 1981).

jens

28th December 2009, 12:29

So I think that IF MS is fit and IF the car is good enough, there is no reason that he won't be able to challenge for wins and even the WDC. Remember, he has beaten many of the current stars and while there are new kids, some of his old and strong rivals are no more. And frankly I am not sure that Hamilton and Vettel are stronger rivals than Hakkinen and Montoya, for example.

Well, the alarming thing with Schumacher is that while he was considered as being clearly The Best driver for most of his career against his contemporaries, he started to lose that status at the end of his career. For instance in 2006 Alonso was every bit as good as MS, so Michael wasn't the best any more, he was "merely" one of the best.

I suspect by 2010 his level compared to his closest rivals will have deteriorated further. If Hamilton or Vettel was Schumi's team-mate in 2010, I would have no doubt the younger bloke would come out on top over a full season - they may not achieve it by much, but they would do it. However, with Rosberg those "ifs" and "buts" still exist as the guy is unproven. Schumacher may be considered as the King of F1, but even the kings fall one day. Even the most dominant sportspersons inevitably have to cede their position one day. Even Schumacher, as great as he is, can't fight against the laws of nature.

Valve Bounce

28th December 2009, 12:37

Hey Valve, then I assume you agree with me in despising the aussie-cheater Alan Jones, who was completely ok with his cheating team (Williams) telling his teammate to move over in the SECOND race of the season (Brazil 1981).

I started to dislike SchM when he ran Mika into a concrete wall in Macau. I don't despise Alan Jones - I don't recall Alan running another driver into a concrete wall. If you persist, we can bring up many other incidents by SchM which you can then gloat over..... NOT!

ShiftingGears

28th December 2009, 12:46

Valve Bounce

28th December 2009, 13:18

Well don't bring up Austria 2002 as a critisism of Schumacher or the Ferrari team if you don't have a problem with it when the same thing was done by Williams with Alan Jones. That's just hypocritical.

Where did I say that I condoned Williams giving team orders to benefit Alan Jones?

wedge

28th December 2009, 14:11

I started to dislike SchM when he ran Mika into a concrete wall in Macau.[/b]

TuvL8dDQxnc#t=0m48s

No he never.

Mika had his wing under Schumi's gearbox. Schumi moved to block first then Mika attacked for the inside. They touched and it sent Mika into the wall.

Judging by Mika's reaction after the incident which was much like 1999 Italian GP where Mika fell asleep and span off the first chicane greatly suggests Mika was more at fault.

wedge

28th December 2009, 14:12

I started to dislike SchM when he ran Mika into a concrete wall in Macau.[/b]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuvL8dDQxnc#t=0m48s

No he never.

Mika had his wing under Schumi's gearbox. Schumi moved to block first then Mika attacked for the inside. They touched and it sent Mika into the wall.

Judging by Mika's reaction after the incident which was much like 1999 Italian GP where Mika fell asleep and span off the first chicane greatly suggests Mika was more at fault.

jas123f1

28th December 2009, 14:32

A proper Tifosi supports NOBODY other than the Ferrari TEAM and they now look upon Schumacher as a traitor. Thats Tifosi.

Ever been to Monza and heard how they booed Niki Lauda when he drove for Mclaren? THATS Tifosi.

I have a video from the 1984 Monza GP when Niki Lauda won before 2 Italian drivers, great drive .. his win gave him the chance to win his 3rd WDC title – :champion: which he made only a half point before Prost.

Btw - those Italian drivers on the podium with Niki were Alborreto and Patrese and Swedish Stefan Johansson was 4th.

:s mokin:

jas123f1

28th December 2009, 15:28

Rubens was ordered to move over for SchM very early in the season and when he himself had hopes of "being the pebble in SchM's shoe" and beating him regularly and even winning the championship himself. I don't know where you got this his holier-than-thou hypocritical fans from, because I am not a fan of Rubens. This incident was discussed in great detail here and your attempts to alter history is just that: rubbish.
Agreed, to 100%. and I'm not Rubens fan - even if I n some way like him and his spontaneity.. but he never get a really chance (it was not "fair play" at all) I never forget when Schumi tried to explain after Austria 2002 how important it was for him that Rubens moved over for him and giving him some extra points - and that when he was leading with 54 points and the second man (Montoya) had 27 points, 3rd was Ralf 23 and
then Rubens with 12 points. A year before happen the same Rubens was ordered to move over from his second place to and give it to Schumi. Who can forget it ? and that way it was Rubens was not allowed to win.. all this b*** s**** take away lot of the glory of “the best ever racer”. The quetion is: How good he really was??

I hope Ross and Schumi this time don’t do the same mistake against Nico, it would really discredit Mercedes, as it did for Ferrari.

:s mokin:

Triumph

28th December 2009, 16:39

This is great news, but I've already got Lewis and Jenson to support! As a past-supporter of Michael I'll be supporting him too for his return to F1, so with my small list of favourites I think there is scope for another great season in 2010.

Based on information available I'm fully expecting Michael to be a front-runner, assuming that the car is up to the job. I can't imagine him contemplating a return to F1 unless he knew he could win races.

I recall hearing on one or two occasions that he can still beat all the regular F1 drivers in a kart, so that bodes well for his F1 return.

:-)

jens

28th December 2009, 17:37

I would add that, if Ferrari's drivers were to be beaten by anyone, I would hope it was Michael.

That would be a lot easier to accept than being beaten by a lazy driver with a couldn't-care attitude.

I'd imagine that to a real tifosi it shouldn't matter, from who exactly are they getting beaten - a defeat is a defeat. Maybe losses to McLaren and Mercedes would be taken more seriously due to historical background and rivalry. So this means Schumacher should be among the fiercest rivals. :p : Besides this, Tifosi should fear the strongest rivals the most. And if Michael is regarded so highly by them due to his driving skills, it should mean that Tifosi should now oppose MS more than anyone else - fear the best, not "support" them! Surely currently Tifosi dislike Hamilton more than any other driver? Wonder why - because he is an excellent racing driver and maybe their strongest rival currently. And if a Ferrari gets beaten by Hamilton, I don't think a Ferrari fan thinks along the lines of "Oh well after all it's fine to get beaten by such great driver."

jas123f1

28th December 2009, 17:50

Its interesting to read the views on other forums about what Ferrari fans really think of this Schumacher/Merc move, and there does seem to be a small element who will support him next year should Ferrari fail at certain events. Its also quite apparent that theres a high number of Tifosi who are quite bitter about the whole thing and expect him to be booed at Monza. It seems that the Tifosi chaps on this very forum show a level of maturity not expressed widely in the Tifosi community, which is sad considering how much MS gave to Ferrari over the years... :)

I hope Schumi and Nico will show Ferrari people how nice a Mercedes looks on the track .. in backside view ;)

Roamy

28th December 2009, 18:08

Yes they are.

I have great affection for them remembering how they were and are towards my alltime favorite racing driver - Jody Scheckter.

yes and my all time favorite Gilles

Roamy

28th December 2009, 18:16

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:33

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:37

I started to dislike SchM when he ran Mika into a concrete wall in Macau. I don't despise Alan Jones - I don't recall Alan running another driver into a concrete wall. If you persist, we can bring up many other incidents by SchM which you can then gloat over..... NOT!

Now you are judging Jones with a completely other measure than what you just used for MS.

BTW I agree with Tamburello,he is making a parallel between MS accepting that his team mate had to move over because of team orders and Kimi doing exactly the same thing.

If Kimi would have said no thanks when gifted 1st place in Brazil 2007 you would have a point, but that didn't happen.

That the team orders were issued it's not MS' neither Kimi's fault so I don't see where do you find the difference.

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:38

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:40

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuvL8dDQxnc#t=0m48s

No he never.

Mika had his wing under Schumi's gearbox. Schumi moved to block first then Mika attacked for the inside. They touched and it sent Mika into the wall.

Judging by Mika's reaction after the incident which was much like 1999 Italian GP where Mika fell asleep and span off the first chicane greatly suggests Mika was more at fault.

Good to see an opinion that isn't based on some urban legend and hatred towards MS but rather on a good analysis of the facts and logic.

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:41

[quote="Valve Bounce"]This is absolute nonsense. Rubens was ordered to move over for SchM very early in the season...[quote]

And why is that MS' fault? Did he issue the order? No he didn't.
So what's your problem exactly?!

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:43

Oh this season could be great - all the sh!t will resurface about MS.

We can certainly trust you to do exactly that.

Now if we could only get JV to renault we could have a war this year.

That would certainly be funny to watch.

We could even have a poll - how many races until the first cheat :p

Luckily JV isn't coming back with Renault so there will be no cheating.

ioan

28th December 2009, 18:44

I'd imagine that to a real tifosi it shouldn't matter, from who exactly are they getting beaten - a defeat is a defeat.[/i]

That's a very black and white imagination. :(

Roamy

28th December 2009, 18:54

oh yea it is going to be a good year - even here on the forum.

Malbec

28th December 2009, 19:12

A proper Tifosi supports NOBODY other than the Ferrari TEAM and they now look upon Schumacher as a traitor. Thats Tifosi.

I thought you were a Nigel Mansell fan or am I wrong?

If you were you'd remember the reception 'the lion' got from the Tifosi when he raced on Italian soil after he left Ferrari.

Alternatively you might know the reception John Surtees got when he won at Monza for Honda in 1968 after leaving Ferrari.

Neither were viewed as traitors for leaving Ferrari, both were treated with great respect and devotion by the tifosi.

jens

28th December 2009, 19:20

That's a very black and white imagination. :(

Well, I meant in absolute terms. Of course if a championship is at stake, then losing to closest competitors is more bitter. ;) Of course if someone like Sutil in a Force India or Glock in a Virgin happens to beat a Ferrari in race here or there, one may rightly think - oh well, let that underdog have their moment of glory for once.

But considering historic rivarly the lead drivers of Mercedes and McLaren - meaning Schumacher and Hamilton respectively - should be the fiercest rivals, who Tifosi ought to wish seeing struggle every time they see them on track. I don't know about Red Bull - maybe they aren't considered as great rivals yet due to lack of history.

I may ask you and Tamburello - how did you feel, when Schumacher overtook Alesi in the closing stages of the 1995 European GP? Especially as by that time it was known that MS was going to race for Ferrari next year.

I didn't see that race live, but when I watched that race a few years ago in a video, I felt sad. I always had special sympathy for that dark-red Ferrari with its underdog status, who was "often close, but never there" - without doubt my favourite team from that era. That particular race offered a bitter result. The fact that Schumacher was a great racing driver and it was a superb drive by him, is hardly comforting - actually it makes matters worse. "Oh why did he need to be there and take that win away?" is the inevitable question that arises.

jens

28th December 2009, 19:35

I thought you were a Nigel Mansell fan or am I wrong?

If you were you'd remember the reception 'the lion' got from the Tifosi when he raced on Italian soil after he left Ferrari.

Alternatively you might know the reception John Surtees got when he won at Monza for Honda in 1968 after leaving Ferrari.

Neither were viewed as traitors for leaving Ferrari, both were treated with great respect and devotion by the tifosi.

I presume "respecting" and "supporting" are two separate things. ;) One rival may be liked more than the other in battles between them, but still really want both of them get beaten by "my favourite", when they happen to be together on track.

Malbec

28th December 2009, 20:05

I presume "respecting" and "supporting" are two separate things. ;) One rival may be liked more than the other in battles between them, but still really want both of them get beaten by "my favourite", when they happen to be together on track.

I was taking exception to his use of the word 'traitor', a pretty strong term that goes way beyond 'respect' or 'support'.

Hondo

28th December 2009, 20:08

Oh this season could be great - all the sh!t will resurface about MS. Now if we could only get JV to renault we could have a war this year. We could even have a poll - how many races until the first cheat :p

You've got to pick another team. JV doesn't get invited back to places he has already been for some reason.

ioan

28th December 2009, 21:01

But considering historic rivarly the lead drivers of Mercedes and McLaren - meaning Schumacher and Hamilton respectively - should be the fiercest rivals, who Tifosi ought to wish seeing struggle every time they see them on track. I don't know about Red Bull - maybe they aren't considered as great rivals yet due to lack of history.

You're mixing McLaren with Mercedes. I've got nothing against Mercedes and I welcome their choice to go their own way after McLaren tarnished their name.
To me Mercedes as a modern F1 team is a new team and I feel neutral about them.
McLaren it's another story but MS turned them down 10 years ago for a good reason.

I may ask you and Tamburello - how did you feel, when Schumacher overtook Alesi in the closing stages of the 1995 European GP? Especially as by that time it was known that MS was going to race for Ferrari next year.

Back then I didn't know that MS was going to Ferrari. At that time I was watching F1 on RTL Germany without knowing a word in German so I guess it's understandable.

Anyway I was not happy back then, but things changed after 5 WDC titles, 6 WCC titles and a truckload of wins, and IMO it is understandable.

28th December 2009, 21:14

I may ask you and Tamburello - how did you feel, when Schumacher overtook Alesi in the closing stages of the 1995 European GP? Especially as by that time it was known that MS was going to race for Ferrari next year.

Disappointed for Jean. Disappointed for Ferrari.

And quite relieved that this Uber-talent Schumacher fellow was headed for the Scuderia the next year.

tinchote

28th December 2009, 21:25

I started to dislike SchM when he ran Mika into a concrete wall in Macau. I don't despise Alan Jones - I don't recall Alan running another driver into a concrete wall. If you persist, we can bring up many other incidents by SchM which you can then gloat over..... NOT!

Now that we have the video in the thread, you can probably comment again on the "running into a concrete wall".

As for your countryman, look how sad he was about what he did (and look at his boss, whose team co-owner said that Austria 2002 was "the most hypocritical thing they had seen in F1")

http://www.f1-web.com.ar/gpargentina/argentina8117.JPG

jens

28th December 2009, 22:03

You're mixing McLaren with Mercedes. I've got nothing against Mercedes and I welcome their choice to go their own way after McLaren tarnished their name.
To me Mercedes as a modern F1 team is a new team and I feel neutral about them.
McLaren it's another story but MS turned them down 10 years ago for a good reason.

By the "historic" rivalry between Ferrari and Mercedes I largely meant 30's and the 50's, but that may be too long time ago to take it seriously now. Still, it was a legendary era. :)

ioan

28th December 2009, 22:05

By the "historic" rivalry between Ferrari and Mercedes I largely meant 30's and the 50's, but that may be too long ago by now to take it seriously. Still, it was a legendary era. :)

Ferrari wasn't even around as a manufacturer race team per se in the 30's. Enzo was mostly racing Alfa's back then.
The big rivalries were between Alfa, Auto Union and Mercedes.
Anyway why should I have something against a team that raced against Ferrari 60 and more years ago?!
For whatever reason I don't understand this view of yours.

jens

28th December 2009, 22:11

Ferrari wasn't even around as a manufacturer race team per se in the 30's. Enzo was mostly racing Alfa's back then.
The big rivalries were between Alfa, Auto Union and Mercedes.
Anyway why should I have something against a team that raced against Ferrari 60 and more years ago?!
For whatever reason I don't understand this view of yours.

You ought not to have anything against Mercedes as such, of course, but still they are probably going to be much more of a threat to Ferrari in the long run than all those Saubers, Indias, etc on the grid. Which means that from Ferrari's point of view I would consider Mercedes as a very serious rival in the next decade of GP racing.

ioan

28th December 2009, 22:12

You ought not to have anything against Mercedes as such, of course, but still they are going to be much more of a threat to Ferrari in the long run than all those Saubers, Indias, etc on the grid. Which means that from Ferrari's point of view I would consider Mercedes as a very seriously rival in the next decade of racing.

The stronger a rival the sweeter it tastes the win and the less bitter is the defeat. :)

jens

28th December 2009, 22:32

The stronger a rival the sweeter it tastes the win and the less bitter is the defeat. :)

Well, probably for me the Mercedes-factor has more importance than to you. :) During Schumacher's prime at Ferrari the main rivals were no-one else than those silvery cars. This created an associated visual image that a "silver arrow" is a rival! I didn't like McLaren in those colours at all and especially if they were successful, it was annoying. I would have preferred watching cars with other colours in front. To be honest, I like the current McLaren with Vodafone much more, the colours and the whole theme are somehow more... friendly. :p : But next year those silver arrows are back... and for me a silver car is a fierce rival of Ferrari - I don't get that one out of my head. ;)

Valve Bounce

28th December 2009, 22:39

Now that we have the video in the thread, you can probably comment again on the "running into a concrete wall".

As for your countryman, look how sad he was about what he did (and look at his boss, whose team co-owner said that Austria 2002 was "the most hypocritical thing they had seen in F1")

http://www.f1-web.com.ar/gpargentina/argentina8117.JPG

Firstly, I don't think the video shows anything that would prove either way. I was in HK at the time and watched the live telecast and many different replays. I have no reason to change my mind about that incident, nor any other incidents involving SchM.

As for Alan Jones, I ask again: "where have I posted that I condoned team orders by Frank Williams that favoured Alan Jones"

I am just disappointed that you choose to re-write history and I have stated that. This has nothing to do with Williams, Alan Jones.

ioan

28th December 2009, 23:15

Well, probably for me the Mercedes-factor has more importance than to you. :) During Schumacher's prime at Ferrari the main rivals were no-one else than those silvery cars. This created an associated visual image that a "silver arrow" is a rival! I didn't like McLaren in those colours at all and especially if they were successful, it was annoying. I would have preferred watching cars with other colours in front. To be honest, I like the current McLaren with Vodafone much more, the colours and the whole theme are somehow more... friendly. :p : But next year those silver arrows are back... and for me a silver car is a fierce rival of Ferrari - I don't get that one out of my head. ;)

It must be that I do not associate Mercedes to McLaren as much as you do, in fact I see them as completely different entities, and the fact that Mercedes decided to leave McLaren gives the impression that they do not agree with their ways of doing some 'things' and this is a positive signal, IMO.

I do not dislike rival teams based on their competitiveness however I do it based on their behavior.

jas123f1

29th December 2009, 01:18

The stronger a rival the sweeter it tastes the win and the less bitter is the defeat. :)

O' yes - that's true.. it will be interesting to see tifosi-reaction.. when Schumi beat Ferrari at Monza (even if you don't care) ..

tinchote

29th December 2009, 09:36

As for Alan Jones, I ask again: "where have I posted that I condoned team orders by Frank Williams that favoured Alan Jones"

I didn't say you posted that. I was just asking if you judge drivers by their actions or by whether you like them or not. Alan Jones is a good example because -- as MS -- he was favoured by team orders early in the season; and, like Ayrton Senna and allegedly MS, he won a WDC by ramming his opponent (at Montreal in 1980). All in all, there is good reason to apply to Jones many of the criteria you apply to MS. I want to know if you do.

I am just disappointed that you choose to re-write history and I have stated that. This has nothing to do with Williams, Alan Jones.

It does, because you said that Austria 2002 (or 2001, for that matter) is different than Brazil 2007/2008, and we are trying to establish what you mean by that.

We are having this discussion because you are one of the members of these forums that campaign against a driver. Some of us don't do that, and many of us don't like it.

Valve Bounce

29th December 2009, 09:59

I didn't say you posted that. I was just asking if you judge drivers by their actions or by whether you like them or not. Alan Jones is a good example because -- as MS -- he was favoured by team orders early in the season; and, like Ayrton Senna and allegedly MS, he won a WDC by ramming his opponent (at Montreal in 1980). All in all, there is good reason to apply to Jones many of the criteria you apply to MS. I want to know if you do.

It does, because you said that Austria 2002 (or 2001, for that matter) is different than Brazil 2007/2008, and we are trying to establish what you mean by that.

We are having this discussion because you are one of the members of these forums that campaign against a driver. Some of us don't do that, and many of us don't like it.

Sorry, in 1980, I was working in Sri Lanka where there was no F1 reporting whatsoever. So I have no record of what you are referring to. I know absolutely nothing about the season when Alan Jones won the championship. So if you want to make a point against Alan Jones, go right ahead - just don't involve me.

I am not campaigning against SchM, but since you brought the subject up, my feelings about SchM's incidents are a matter of record here and can be found by anyone through a forum check.

We are basically having this discussion because your attempts at re-writing history are ill directed when you try to associate what SchM has done in the past with what Kimi has, which is totally absurd.

ShiftingGears

29th December 2009, 10:18

Where did I say that I condoned Williams giving team orders to benefit Alan Jones?

My apologies, I misread that part. I still don't understand why you think there is no similarities between Austria 2002 and Brazil 2008. They are both team orders that were put in place to advantage the better placed driver.

Garry Walker

29th December 2009, 10:42

You know, I hear many ferrari fans are so pissed off at this and I find this very amusing. I have for a long time considered ferrari fans to be not among the brightest of F1 fans, so this is quite funny.
Hopefully Schumacher in a mercedes will bring about a lot of humiliation to LDM next year.

Not something to be overly excited about. Among no other drivers aiming for an F1 seat (even oldies like Badoer, DLR, Villeneuve, etc) we have heard news that they needed to go through medical check to clarify whether they are fit enough to race. And in such age it may not be that easy to regain 100% fitness again. I wouldn't rule out that MS might still not reach the grid in Bahrain - maybe he will complain about neck/something else during winter tests and there it goes...

They all go through medical tests. The reason Schumacher is getting coverage about it is simply because...well, nobody cares about the others. Also, those guys didnt injure their necks just half a year ago.

Amen.
But since he's playing at Rallying because F1 is too hard for him, that's not likely.

Rallying is harder than F1.

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME

Either you do not accept help from a team-mate or you do.

Kimi did.
.

Kimi was faster than Felipe at that GP actually, so it was deserved he won.

Valve Bounce

29th December 2009, 11:36

My apologies, I misread that part. I still don't understand why you think there is no similarities between Austria 2002 and Brazil 2008. They are both team orders that were put in place to advantage the better placed driver.

Do I have to draw you a picture? :rolleyes:

ShiftingGears

29th December 2009, 11:43

Do I have to draw you a picture? :rolleyes:

No. You could always explain your stance instead of resorting to saying "don't attempt to rewrite history" instead.

ShiftingGears

29th December 2009, 13:11

Now that we have the video in the thread, you can probably comment again on the "running into a concrete wall".

I can't see anything wrong with what Jones did at the Montreal Grand Prix. If you are referring to the startline incident then it is just a racing incident involving two racers unwilling to give the other any room.

tinchote

29th December 2009, 13:13

We are basically having this discussion because your attempts at re-writing history are ill directed when you try to associate what SchM has done in the past with what Kimi has, which is totally absurd.

I'm not trying to re-write history, and I don't think anybody here knows what you mean by that.

What is absurd is that you have an issue with one instance where team orders were used, and you seem to have no problems with many other cases. It appears you have some kind of scale where certain cases are wrong and others aren't. So, as theugsquirrel said, you could simply explain your position, rather than using your posts to dismiss other people's.

52Paddy

29th December 2009, 14:49

What is absurd is that you have an issue with one instance where team orders were used, and you seem to have no problems with many other cases. It appears you have some kind of scale where certain cases are wrong and others aren't.

I do think that team orders in different instances have different implications to be honest. The idea of ordering one car to pass the other is, for me, a fine concept and has been done since at least the 50s (if you take 'shared drives' into account). But sometimes they are abused or used needlessly.

My view on the Austria 2002 scandal is that Schumacher, at that stage in the year, was not particularly needy of another win (Had one 4 out of the first 5 races), so to rob Barrichello of his win (on merit) through team-orders was a blatantly bad thing to do, morally speaking. Yes, Barrichello was the No. 2 driver. Yes, Barrichello is there to aid Schumacher's campaign. But I find it a little far-fetched when he has to deal with orders like the one given in that instance - Schumacher didn't need that help. That was pure robbery.

Kimi's situation is different. Yes, team orders were used. Its not team orders I have the problem with - it's the situation they were used in. Kimi had a chance to take the title in 2007, which he did.

Think of it this way: Schumacher had won his title just over half way through 2002. Team-orders or not, he would have taken the title that year in dominant fashion. Kimi won the 2007 title by one point and it was a nail-biting finish. Team orders were used to a much better affect there.

Thats my view and I wonder if Valve Bounce shares similar feelings.

tinchote

29th December 2009, 15:38

I do think that team orders in different instances have different implications to be honest. The idea of ordering one car to pass the other is, for me, a fine concept and has been done since at least the 50s (if you take 'shared drives' into account). But sometimes they are abused or used needlessly.

My view on the Austria 2002 scandal is that Schumacher, at that stage in the year, was not particularly needy of another win (Had one 4 out of the first 5 races), so to rob Barrichello of his win (on merit) through team-orders was a blatantly bad thing to do, morally speaking. Yes, Barrichello was the No. 2 driver. Yes, Barrichello is there to aid Schumacher's campaign. But I find it a little far-fetched when he has to deal with orders like the one given in that instance - Schumacher didn't need that help. That was pure robbery.

I agree with that view. But there are a few things to be considered.

1) it's something that had been done in the past in F1, so to single Austria 2002 out is unfair in my view (and I can tell you that I was really pissed-off at Ferrari at the moment).

2) It's easy to say it now, well after that season is over, that the points were not needed; try asking any team, any driver, any time, during the first half of the season, whether they are ok with letting a couple points slip away.

3) If anything, one should be mad at the team for doing it (I certainly was), but what's the point in singling out the driver? Do people really think that MS was driving during the race, and telling the pits to say to RB "move over"?

4) I get particularly mad with this issue when the same people that claim that MS/Ferrari "cheated" with this or something like this, also think that Williams (a team which did exactly the same) is the great "racing spirit" team.

29th December 2009, 16:10

Think of it this way: Schumacher had won his title just over half way through 2002. Team-orders or not, he would have taken the title that year in dominant fashion.

Just one question....Can you read the future?

Nobody could have been 100% sure that Michael would win the title by mid-season.

Unless you are 100% sure, you don't throw away points.

jens

29th December 2009, 17:12

Just one question....Can you read the future?

Nobody could have been 100% sure that Michael would win the title by mid-season.

Unless you are 100% sure, you don't throw away points.

I tend to agree. Ferrari may have been dominant by the time of the Austrian GP, but who would have known, maybe Williams would have come out with massive upgrades for the race after that, which would have enabled them to dominate and start closing the gap as a result. Things can change really quickly in F1, 2009 was a clear proof of it (sudden end of Brawn GP's domination).

By the way, by the ninth race of the season - European GP at the Nürburgring - it was already clear for Ferrari that Schumacher was going to march away with the title in any case, so they allowed Rubens to stay in front until the end.

ioan

29th December 2009, 19:04

What is absurd is that you have an issue with one instance where team orders were used, and you seem to have no problems with many other cases. It appears you have some kind of scale where certain cases are wrong and others aren't.

Human nature is like that, people tend to forget or change the bad memories but keep hanging to the ones that for some reason given them pleasure, in this case Valve having a go at MS' every time he is mentioned, I rather not talk about how fousto reacts in the same situation. :\

Double standards have always been the standard in this forum and I remember the good ol days when we had those fierce disputes with the MS detractors.

PS: Good to have you back! :)

tinchote

29th December 2009, 19:25

PS: Good to have you back! :)

Thanks :)

52Paddy

29th December 2009, 19:36

I agree with that view. But there are a few things to be considered.

1) it's something that had been done in the past in F1, so to single Austria 2002 out is unfair in my view (and I can tell you that I was really pissed-off at Ferrari at the moment).

2) It's easy to say it now, well after that season is over, that the points were not needed; try asking any team, any driver, any time, during the first half of the season, whether they are ok with letting a couple points slip away.

3) If anything, one should be mad at the team for doing it (I certainly was), but what's the point in singling out the driver? Do people really think that MS was driving during the race, and telling the pits to say to RB "move over"?

4) I get particularly mad with this issue when the same people that claim that MS/Ferrari "cheated" with this or something like this, also think that Williams (a team which did exactly the same) is the great "racing spirit" team.

1) Personally, I wasn't singling out Austria 2002 per se. I was just comparing it to Brazil 2007, as that was what we were talking about. I'm not saying that Austria 2002 was the worst case of team orders, but I don't think its worth drawing a straight parallel between that situation and Brazil 2007 (which, yes, I believe to be a less serious case morally).

2) I understand that it was not clear that Schumacher would absolutely win the championship. But, being in a comfortable position that he was, I don't agree with the team's decision to use orders that early personally. I just don't like manufacturing a result like that, especially when its not vital - even if it does serve a purpose of sorts.

3) Don't get me wrong, I am NOT singling out MS at all. All of my grief was with Ferrari's/Todt's decision at the time. Nothing to do with Schumi whatsoever.

4) I don't think Ferrari cheated but I do think they manufactured this result for a feeble reason (or a case of bad timing...). I am all about fair play, and I'm not stating that this was a case of the contrary. Ferrari are free to play with team orders as they wish, within the regulations.

The only point that I'm really trying to stress is that you can't put Austria 2002/Brazil 2007 into the same category of 'offense' (if we can call it that). I guess it depends on your own views of whats moral and whats not. Or whether you're completely textbook and look at the situation from a regulations point of view. For me, the team orders at Austria 2002 were worse for a number of reasons: Regardless of how uncertain one can be at that early stage, Schumacher had the grasp of the championship and did not need those points. Yes, the argument is there to suggest that 'who knows what could happen later in the year' but, for me, its not good enough to fulfill my own judgement on the case. On top of that, I doubt Barrichello was expecting it to happen. At least in Brazil, Massa was going to be 'on call', safe in the knowledge that he was there to help his team-mate to the title.

Giuseppe F1

29th December 2009, 20:13

I wonder if Schumacher long time Physio and spiritual guru whilst at Ferrari, Balbir Singh, will now turn up at Mercedes GP Petronas?

He quit Ferrari towards the end of Schumacher's tenure at the team as a race driver and then after being out of the paddock for a few years returned recently with his countryman Vijay Mallya's Force India team - I wouldnt be too surprised if Balbir ends up at Mercedes therefore - would be logical I guess

http://www.motorsport.com/photos/f1/2005/sm/f1-2005-sm-xp-0478.jpg

Valve Bounce

29th December 2009, 22:31

No. You could always explain your stance instead of resorting to saying "don't attempt to rewrite history" instead.

If you just bother to read the posts from several members above, including myself, the explanation has already been given.

Valve Bounce

29th December 2009, 22:35

I'm not trying to re-write history, and I don't think anybody here knows what you mean by that.

What is absurd is that you have an issue with one instance where team orders were used, and you seem to have no problems with many other cases. It appears you have some kind of scale where certain cases are wrong and others aren't. So, as theugsquirrel said, you could simply explain your position, rather than using your posts to dismiss other people's.

The two cases are totally different, and this has been explained to you by several posters including myself. Your thinly veiled lies to try to justify the Austrian "move over" incident does nothing for your veracity.

ioan

29th December 2009, 22:47

The two cases are totally different, and this has been explained to you by several posters including myself. Your thinly veiled lies to try to justify the Austrian "move over" incident does nothing for your veracity.

All team orders are team orders, which means that the team management decided what the drivers should do.
Judging drivers because of team orders, that are obviously not decided by themselves, is shortsighted. Judging them with different measures is shortsighted + hypocrite.

ioan

29th December 2009, 22:49

If you just bother to read the posts from several members above, including myself, the explanation has already been given.

Maybe 'the explanation' is one sided BS.

PS: We can continue discussing this topic on 5th January, now I'm going to get a life, and a bit of adrenaline on the slopes, for a few days! ;)

Valve Bounce

29th December 2009, 23:28

Maybe 'the explanation' is one sided BS.

PS: We can continue discussing this topic on 5th January, now I'm going to get a life, and a bit of adrenaline on the slopes, for a few days! ;)

Thank God!!

tinchote

30th December 2009, 00:05

The two cases are totally different, and this has been explained to you by several posters including myself. Your thinly veiled lies to try to justify the Austrian "move over" incident does nothing for your veracity.

I never said that the two cases are the same. When I was saying "the two cases" I was talking about Ferrari/MS and Williams/AJ.

I did said that you use Austria 2002 to justify your hate of one driver.

And I will stop talking to you after you calling me a liar. But since you started with the insults, I will add that you are a close-minded bigot who doesn't really read other people's posts and is not willing to defend his position by reasoning.

tinchote

30th December 2009, 00:11

The only point that I'm really trying to stress is that you can't put Austria 2002/Brazil 2007 into the same category of 'offense' (if we can call it that). I guess it depends on your own views of whats moral and whats not. Or whether you're completely textbook and look at the situation from a regulations point of view. For me, the team orders at Austria 2002 were worse for a number of reasons: Regardless of how uncertain one can be at that early stage, Schumacher had the grasp of the championship and did not need those points. Yes, the argument is there to suggest that 'who knows what could happen later in the year' but, for me, its not good enough to fulfill my own judgement on the case. On top of that, I doubt Barrichello was expecting it to happen. At least in Brazil, Massa was going to be 'on call', safe in the knowledge that he was there to help his team-mate to the title.

When I talked about "singling out" I was thinking more of Valve Bounce's statements rather than yours. As for the rest, I never said that the two situations are equal. Not only you have Brazil 2007/2008, you also have Malaysia 1999 to have another example of "more justifiable" team orders. But I still claim that things are not so simple when looking at Austria 2002. At that time, Ferrari were still near from having had the 1999 issue (where MS would have easily won the WDC had he not injured himself). I never liked the Austria 2002 decision, but I do think that all the fuzz that was done about it was not warranted.

Valve Bounce

30th December 2009, 00:35

All team orders are team orders, which means that the team management decided what the drivers should do.
Judging drivers because of team orders, that are obviously not decided by themselves, is shortsighted. Judging them with different measures is shortsighted + hypocrite.

I clearly remember that Rubens asked Brawn whether It was Michael who wanted him to pull over, and Ross Brawn said "yes". As far as I am concerned, I am not going to re-visit this incident - it has been thoroughly discussed in the past.

gloomyDAY

30th December 2009, 00:41

I'm going to get a life, and a bit of adrenaline on the slopes, for a few days! ;) Break a leg.

Kevincal

30th December 2009, 05:15

I don't know if it's been brought up, but the thought popped into my head. Possibly the main reason Shumi is returning is to seek revenge against Alonso by doing to Alonso what Alonso did to him, beat him in a lesser car.

Also, maybe Schumi is worried about Alonso getting on a roll and possibly breaking his records in time? ;) Could happen.

Also, maybe the real reason Schumi left Ferrari is because he was pissed his good friend Massa got the short end of the stick when Ferrari signed Alonso, therefore making Schumi unhappy?

I hope Alonso, Schumi and Massa smoke the overrated youngsters in 2010. :)

DexDexter

30th December 2009, 09:03

tinchote

30th December 2009, 09:53

In reality Michael's return has nothing to do with Fernando Alonso, it's about Michael Schumacher and his desire to race/drive F1 cars.

Fueled by the fact that several times he's been karting with success against current drivers, and that in these 3 years he has driven F1 Ferraris several times. So I think he has a pretty fair idea of how competitive he could be.

30th December 2009, 10:57

The two cases are totally different, and this has been explained to you by several posters including myself. Your thinly veiled lies to try to justify the Austrian "move over" incident does nothing for your veracity.

You've "explained" feck all.

Austria 2002 was a team order, as was Brazil 2007. No difference.

A "moral" difference is an illusion.

30th December 2009, 11:10

China 2008
Germany 2008
Canada 2008
Brazil 2007
Monaco 2007
China 2006
USA 2005
Austria 2002
Malaysia 1999
Belgium 1998
Australia 1998
Japan 1997
Jerez 1997

etc, etc, etc.

Orders effected the outcome of these races.

Effecting the outcome of a race is effecting the outcome of a race, is it not?

Dzeidzei

30th December 2009, 11:15

Possibly the main reason Shumi is returning is to seek revenge against Alonso by doing to Alonso what Alonso did to him, beat him in a lesser car.

Well, he should have signed with Farce India then. With Merc power, all that money and Ross Brawn he´s certainly not in a lesser car.

DexDexter

30th December 2009, 12:36

Well, he should have signed with Farce India then. With Merc power, all that money and Ross Brawn he´s certainly not in a lesser car.

Or Lotus :D

52Paddy

30th December 2009, 13:38

As for the rest, I never said that the two situations are equal. Not only you have Brazil 2007/2008, you also have Malaysia 1999 to have another example of "more justifiable" team orders. But I still claim that things are not so simple when looking at Austria 2002. At that time, Ferrari were still near from having had the 1999 issue (where MS would have easily won the WDC had he not injured himself). I never liked the Austria 2002 decision, but I do think that all the fuzz that was done about it was not warranted.

Now I can understand your viewpoint much better. :) I stand by my previous posts but, nonetheless, you make an interesting comparison to the 1999 situation.

A "moral" difference is an illusion.

If that's how you see it, then fair enough. It's a mean sport, no doubt, and has no time these days for racing spirit or many of the traditional ways of operating. However, morals still abide for those of that mind. Me, I live my life a certain way and, whatever way I choose to do that, whatever "rules" I choose to live by, will, ultimately determine where my opinion lies and you can't call it an 'illusion'. If I go over a beat up a kid who started slagging me, would that compare to beating up a person of the same age for the same reason? I don't think so. Team orders need to be contextualised before we can come to a conclusion on whether there is malice involved (and, if so, how much malice..)

That's my view on things and I accept your view too. If you don't judge the situation from a moral point of view, then we'll never reach an agreement on this.

Effecting the outcome of a race is effecting the outcome of a race, is it not?

I can't look at this situation with a black and white mindset.

30th December 2009, 15:06

Team orders need to be contextualised before we can come to a conclusion on whether there is malice involved (and, if so, how much malice..)

There was no "malice" involved.

It was a practical decision based on unemotional logical analysis.

As it should be, as it is a professional sport where achieving results are all that is important. Formula One does not award points based on morality, nor has it ever.

The idea that there was malice involved is bizarre.

30th December 2009, 15:09

I can't look at this situation with a black and white mindset.

Then you cannot hope to understand the logical decision nor the reasons behind it, as it was a decision taken purely within the terms of a black & white view.

Knowing that it was taken without emotion, then it is easy to see why it was taken and that there was no malicious intent.

ShiftingGears

31st December 2009, 00:15

If you just bother to read the posts from several members above, including myself, the explanation has already been given.

You didn't explain anything, so thanks for wasting my time.

Valve Bounce

31st December 2009, 01:09

You've "explained" feck all.

Austria 2002 was a team order, as was Brazil 2007. No difference.

A "moral" difference is an illusion.

Don't be fecking silly!!

airshifter

31st December 2009, 01:22

You've "explained" feck all.

Austria 2002 was a team order, as was Brazil 2007. No difference.

A "moral" difference is an illusion.

It's an illusion only to those that fail to see the difference.

Allowing two drivers to compete until one is not in contention for a title and then requiring them to support the other driver is a logical decision for any team at any time.

Forcing team orders early in the season to only give one driver a chance is robbing an often worthy second driver.

I personally think MS would have got his titles regardless of the team orders involved, and certainly can't fault him for allowing it. But for Ferrari all it did was cheapen them in the eyes of many. Enzo would be so proud. It was part of his legacy to win at all costs, regardless of what anyone else thought.

Valve Bounce

31st December 2009, 01:42

You didn't explain anything, so thanks for wasting my time.

I say again: all this has been discussed in great detail after the "move over" incident in Austria. I don't intend to dig it all up again - if you are interested, then you can do a forum search to inform yourself of the details and what was discussed.

I am not wasting your time, you are wasting your own time, so don't blame me.

Valve Bounce

31st December 2009, 01:45

I never said that the two cases are the same. When I was saying "the two cases" I was talking about Ferrari/MS and Williams/AJ.

I did said that you use Austria 2002 to justify your hate of one driver.

And I will stop talking to you after you calling me a liar. But since you started with the insults, I will add that you are a close-minded bigot who doesn't really read other people's posts and is not willing to defend his position by reasoning.

I am very sorry for the comment I posted. I got carried away by comments made by someone else. I hope you will accept my unreserved apology. I don't believe you have posted anything that is a lie. Sorry! :(

tinchote

31st December 2009, 03:01

I am very sorry for the comment I posted. I got carried away by comments made by someone else. I hope you will accept my unreserved apology. I don't believe you have posted anything that is a lie. Sorry! :(

(sorry, I wrote a somewhat longer answer, and then this darn W7 decided to freeze when I was about to post it)

I got carried away too, so apology accepted, and my apologies too :)

Now let's talk about 2010 :D

pino

31st December 2009, 06:14

Now let's talk about 2010 :D

Exactly, let's forget Austria 2002 and let's talk about Michael's future only, thank you and Happy New Year Everyone ! :)

btw welcome back tin :up:

Valve Bounce

31st December 2009, 07:56

(sorry, I wrote a somewhat longer answer, and then this darn W7 decided to freeze when I was about to post it)

I got carried away too, so apology accepted, and my apologies too :)

Now let's talk about 2010 :D

I think that 2010 will be an exciting year with the return of SchM. I have already posted this several times elsewhere, and I am looking forward to it. We have quite a few drivers who could easily qualify on pole or even win races. I don't think SchM is too old, nor do I think he has lost his desire to win. Let's see what the outcome will be, but as I posted earlier, he will be no stranger to the podium.

Do you agree?

jas123f1

31st December 2009, 11:08

As for the rest, I never said that the two situations are equal. Not only you have Brazil 2007/2008, you also have Malaysia 1999 to have another example of "more justifiable" team orders. But I still claim that things are not so simple when looking at Austria 2002. At that time, Ferrari were still near from having had the 1999 issue (where MS would have easily won the WDC had he not injured himself). I never liked the Austria 2002 decision, but I do think that all the fuzz that was done about it was not warranted.

I don't know if you remember what Schumi said when tried to explain the situation after Austria scandals 2001 and especially 2002.
He said: I hope that the championship soon is clear, so we can start really racing - I’m sure Rubens will win many races.. yet.

However to me it’s perfectly clear what that means..
Rubens was not allowed either to win or not even take more points than Schumi until the championship was Schumacher’s.
And this was the system at Ferrari during every season as long Schumacher was driving. When Kimi went to Ferrari I was hoping that they should start that “really racing” and as I can see they did and helped each other not only in one direction.. 2007 Felipe helped Kimi and got a new contract until 2010 as “a plaster on a wound” and Kimi did 2008 the same helped Felipe – and got a new contract for 2010 as “a plaster on a wound” – which Ferrari then didn’t keep.

I don’t think we can compare Schumacher/Rubens with Felipe/Kimi – the first one was not fair because it was used only for Schumi but Felipe/Kimi were agreed of both.

:)

pino

31st December 2009, 11:17

I don't know if you remember what Schumi said when tried to explain the situation after Austria scandals 2001 and especially 2002.
He said: I hope that the championship soon is clear, so we can start really racing - I’m sure Rubens will win many races.. yet.

However to me it’s perfectly clear what that means..
Rubens was not allowed either to win or not even take more points than Schumi until the championship was Schumacher’s.
And this was the system at Ferrari during every season as long Schumacher was driving. When Kimi went to Ferrari I was hoping that they should start that “really racing” and as I can see they did and helped each other not only in one direction.. 2007 Felipe helped Kimi and got a new contract until 2010 as “a plaster on a wound” and Kimi did 2008 the same helped Felipe – and got a new contract for 2010 as “a plaster on a wound” – which Ferrari then didn’t keep.

I don’t think we can compare Schumacher/Rubens with Felipe/Kimi – the first one was not fair because it was used only for Schumi but Felipe/Kimi were agreed of both.

:)

I've asked to forget about Austria 2002 and to move on...

jas123f1

31st December 2009, 13:36

I've asked to forget about Austria 2002 and to move on...

Ok, you are The Boss...

It's (was) ;) interesting only because Schumi is back and has a young team mate in Nico and the risk is that the same will happen again.
But as you want – I will try to forget it .. so far.. if Nico get a fair treatment next year..

:s mokin:

pino

31st December 2009, 13:56

Ok, you are The Boss...

It's (was) ;) interesting only because Schumi is back and has a young team mate in Nico and the risk is that the same will happen again.
But as you want – I will try to forget it .. so far.. if Nico get a fair treatment next year..

:s mokin:

We have discussed about Austria 2002 for years, and we don't need to do that again. So let's wait and see what will happen at Mercedes and then we can discuss it as much as you like :)

tinchote

31st December 2009, 16:16

btw welcome back tin :up:

Thanks :)

tinchote

31st December 2009, 16:18

I think that 2010 will be an exciting year with the return of SchM. I have already posted this several times elsewhere, and I am looking forward to it. We have quite a few drivers who could easily qualify on pole or even win races. I don't think SchM is too old, nor do I think he has lost his desire to win. Let's see what the outcome will be, but as I posted earlier, he will be no stranger to the podium.

Do you agree?

One question is how much the team changed after it was left by Honda. After all, in 2009 they did great for the first half of the year, more than anything because they were using different rules than the rest, and then they lost it. So the question is, does the current Mercedes team have enough power/money/talent to start 2010 from the top?

52Paddy

31st December 2009, 16:52

So the question is, does the current Mercedes team have enough power/money/talent to start 2010 from the top?

I think so.

Power: Engine-wise, if 2009 is anything to go by, a Merc engine will be the one to have. Power in terms of politics is something I'd rather not comment on.

Money: They're a huge manufacturer who also supply engines to a couple of teams which means I doubt there'll be lack of dosh in the Merc camp - despite the downfall of the car industry over the past few years.

Talent: Schumacher and Rosberg will work well together in my opinion. If Schumacher makes himself look like the #1 driver in the team, then maybe Rosberg can develop by working alongside him. If Rosberg ends up having the advantage over Schu, then that situation will probably entail having a really strong driver line-up because I expect Schumacher to be on form.

I'm afraid, having been away from following F1 for the past few months (up to the last week) that my knowledge of whats on the cards (personnel wise, and rules-wise) is virtually nil.

Valve Bounce

1st January 2010, 00:24

So the question is, does the current Mercedes team have enough power/money/talent to start 2010 from the top?

You're kidding, right! :rolleyes:

There is an image thing here also.
Mercedes is one of the largest manufacturers of taxis, haulage trucks as well as luxury cars. Every Mercedes owner/driver would be looking forward to Mercedes winning an F1 race.
I remember a story once when one taxi driver loved his car so much he used to have small vases in the passenger area to hold flowers. A customer who obviously owned a BMW sneered at his car and insulted him, so the driver stabbed him; don't remember if the passenger was stabbed to death but that's how the story went.

Saint Devote

1st January 2010, 01:14

I didn't say you posted that. I was just asking if you judge drivers by their actions or by whether you like them or not. Alan Jones is a good example because -- as MS -- he was favoured by team orders early in the season; and, like Ayrton Senna and allegedly MS, he won a WDC by ramming his opponent (at Montreal in 1980). All in all, there is good reason to apply to Jones many of the criteria you apply to MS. I want to know if you do.

Anyone that criticizes Alan Jones really gets my "Irish Up"!

If anyone had a problem with Jones they could look him in the eye and sort it out. Now GET OFF AJ!!

The less said about Schumacher's past the better. I do not think he is going to pull the dirty stunts he did in the past and I do not think that Nico Rosberg is the sort of driver that will let him get away with bs - and neither will the FIA stewards these days.

Schumacher has never faced racing against so many fast drivers before and I do not think that he will be quicker than either Alonso or Hamilton or Vettel.

I think that Rosberg will be quicker than him too.

I wonder who Mercedes have in line to replace Schumacher if things get tough and he wonders exactly why he returned?

harsha

1st January 2010, 06:53

Schumacher has never faced racing against so many fast drivers before and I do not think that he will be quicker than either Alonso or Hamilton or Vettel.

I think that Rosberg will be quicker than him too.

I wonder who Mercedes have in line to replace Schumacher if things get tough and he wonders exactly why he returned?

Kimi.... :D

F1boat

1st January 2010, 08:13

1st January 2010, 11:09

Anyone that criticizes Alan Jones really gets my "Irish Up"!

This is why.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-987616238916303203#

Jones had a contract that stipulated he was the Number One driver.

Williams ordered Reuttemann to let Jones win.

It was only the second Grand Prix of the season.

If people criticise Ferrari & Schumacher, then Williams & Alan Jones should be vilified for it.

ArrowsFA1

1st January 2010, 15:30

Jones had a contract that stipulated he was the Number One driver.

Williams ordered Reuttemann to let Jones win.

It was only the second Grand Prix of the season.
Reutemann was contracted to concede his position to Jones if he held a lead over the Australian of less than (IIRC) 6 seconds. This applied at the first race through to the last race of the season.

Although Reutemann led every lap of the Brazilian GP he had failed to build up a big enough lead to make his contract irrelevant.

Saint Devote

1st January 2010, 16:45

This is why.....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-987616238916303203#

Jones had a contract that stipulated he was the Number One driver.

Williams ordered Reuttemann to let Jones win.

It was only the second Grand Prix of the season.

If people criticise Ferrari & Schumacher, then Williams & Alan Jones should be vilified for it.

Its not the team orders I criticize. It is the emminence that people hold Schumacher in that I find hypocrytical. I rate him the same as Niki Lauda as a racing driver but not at all at the same level where character is concerned.

Alan Jones was the lead driver and he was a better designation by the team as one to support because Lole was such a mercurial driver. As drivers Massa reminds me a lot of Reutemann.

But I could never criticze Reutemann because he was one of the heroes of my youth and to me any so-called "flaws" are irrelevant.

Williams has ALWAYS been one of my favorites and today without any equivocation, for nostalgic reasons I suspect is my favorite. I'd love to see Rubens win with them at a track such as Monte Carlo or perhaps better still - Interlagos? :D

1st January 2010, 21:17

Reutemann was contracted to concede his position to Jones if he held a lead over the Australian of less than (IIRC) 6 seconds. This applied at the first race through to the last race of the season.

Although Reutemann led every lap of the Brazilian GP he had failed to build up a big enough lead to make his contract irrelevant.

And that makes it ok?

What it does show is that the notion of Williams being, as is endlessly claimed, a pure racing outfit to be a myth.

1st January 2010, 21:25

Alan Jones was the lead driver and he was a better designation by the team as one to support because Lole was such a mercurial driver. As drivers Massa reminds me a lot of Reutemann.

Whereas Rubens Barichello is a real tough no-nonsense cookie? Not in the least bit temperamental, is he?

If Williams took the decision to favour Jones because he was the better bet, then it was also the case with Schumacher at Ferrari.

I have no problem with Williams doing what they did....my issue is with the people who cry about the Schumacher era at Ferrari yet do not hold Frank Williams in equal contempt.

That, no two ways about it, is hypocritical.

Saint Devote

1st January 2010, 23:10

Whereas Rubens Barichello is a real tough no-nonsense cookie? Not in the least bit temperamental, is he?

If Williams took the decision to favour Jones because he was the better bet, then it was also the case with Schumacher at Ferrari.

I have no problem with Williams doing what they did....my issue is with the people who cry about the Schumacher era at Ferrari yet do not hold Frank Williams in equal contempt.

That, no two ways about it, is hypocritical.

Do not look for Anglo-Saxon temperament in Rubens. But for the first time he will be team leader and his outbursts have always been based on suspicion he was being compromised as the second driver.

Why must I repeat that I have no qualms with team orders in any form.

You may defend the character of Schumacher - but as always defending the indefensible is quixotic to say the least.

Your implication on the character of Frank Williams is a joke and nobody that knows f1 over the past decades will take it seriously anyway but an obvious emotional and hysterical reaction.

wedge

2nd January 2010, 00:00

And that makes it ok?

What it does show is that the notion of Williams being, as is endlessly claimed, a pure racing outfit to be a myth.

Williams 'supposedly' did away with team orders after Carlos broke team orders.

jas123f1

2nd January 2010, 02:56

Saint Devote

2nd January 2010, 03:37

I am perplexed by the idea that MS has never faced so many fast rivals. He faced Hakkinen, who was one of the fastest drivers I have ever seen, maybe even bigger rival for the German than Fernando. He has faced Hill, who, on his day, was like a rocket. He has faced Montoya, an amazing driver, although a bit inconsistent, but brave and courageous like a lion, IMO a stronger rival than Vettel. He has faced Kimi, who is a great talent. To me the new rivals are not stronger. The only question is whether MS is still fit enough to win. If he is, he will be stronger than Jenson, Felipe and Sebastian and at least equal to Alonso and Hamilton IMO.

He had to deal with various individual drivers - but the point is, actually mentioned by Niki Lauda a few days ago as well, that Schumacher has never faced AT ONE TIME in competitive cars, quick drivers together.

Schumacher never had to deal with Senna, Prost or Mansell as they had to with each other.

You may rate Raikkonen and Montoya and Hill in the same vein, but they are not at all.

We shall see - I do not expect Schumacher to beat the top drivers in f1 today. The past in this case is no indication of the future.

F1boat

2nd January 2010, 07:24

He had to deal with various individual drivers - but the point is, actually mentioned by Niki Lauda a few days ago as well, that Schumacher has never faced AT ONE TIME in competitive cars, quick drivers together.

Schumacher never had to deal with Senna, Prost or Mansell as they had to with each other.

You may rate Raikkonen and Montoya and Hill in the same vein, but they are not at all.

We shall see - I do not expect Schumacher to beat the top drivers in f1 today. The past in this case is no indication of the future.

And I still disagree. In 2001 for example in F1 he raced DC, Hakkinen, Montoya, R Schumacher, Raikkonen. In 2003 he raced Raikkonen, DC, R Schumacher, Montoya and Alonso and all were in very good cars. We are yet to see what will be the balance between the teams next year. If Mercedes are weak yes, he may fail, but what if they are dominant like the Brawn GP? Then Mike will crush everyone, again. And if the top teams are equal, IMO Michael can beat Jenson and Sebastian, like he did in RoC, as well as his current and his former teammate, Felipe and Nico. Hamilton and Alonso might really be too much, but we have to wait and see. About them, I am not sure.

Garry Walker

2nd January 2010, 07:38

I think that Rosberg will be quicker than him too.

Bookmarked.

2nd January 2010, 10:05

Your implication on the character of Frank Williams is a joke and nobody that knows f1 over the past decades will take it seriously anyway but an obvious emotional and hysterical reaction.

Thank you for proving you have no defence.

Williams - Guilty as charged.

Saint Devote

2nd January 2010, 11:18

Thank you for proving you have no defence.

Williams - Guilty as charged.

Guilty of what? There is nothing wrong with team orders, it is the FIA that has made it illegal and idiot fans that caused the problem in Autsria that triggered it - it is the character of the people under issue here.

And if you can name a single time that Williams would have signed off on a driver that acted like Schumacher - ramming people or Flavio - crashgate, then you will have a point.

You want to equate Williams morally with people such as Schumacher because it justifies your value-free support of the German.

Have you any idea of the reputation in f1 that Williams has? No, you do not, but worse you do not care - you seek a pox on all their houses and truth be damned.

Saint Devote

2nd January 2010, 11:21

And I still disagree. In 2001 for example in F1 he raced DC, Hakkinen, Montoya, R Schumacher, Raikkonen. In 2003 he raced Raikkonen, DC, R Schumacher, Montoya and Alonso and all were in very good cars. We are yet to see what will be the balance between the teams next year. If Mercedes are weak yes, he may fail, but what if they are dominant like the Brawn GP? Then Mike will crush everyone, again. And if the top teams are equal, IMO Michael can beat Jenson and Sebastian, like he did in RoC, as well as his current and his former teammate, Felipe and Nico. Hamilton and Alonso might really be too much, but we have to wait and see. About them, I am not sure.

The RoC? Schumacher was beaten by a rally driver if memory serves me as I do not pay much attention to that non-event with the ugliest cars on earth?!!!

2nd January 2010, 11:37

Have you any idea of the reputation in f1 that Williams has? No, you do not, but worse you do not care - you seek a pox on all their houses and truth be damned.

I'm fully aware, having worked in F1 (something I suspect you have not), of the reputation of Sir Frank.

And that's my point....Sir Frank employed team-orders and yet is lauded, yet Ferrari did it and the very same people who laud Williams bitterly criticise Ferrari.

It's hypocritical.

2nd January 2010, 11:48

And if you can name a single time that Williams would have signed off on a driver that acted like Schumacher - ramming people or Flavio - crashgate, then you will have a point.

From "Driving Ambition" by Alan Jones -

"To be honest, I'm all for it. As long as you're not actually cheating -or even if you are cheating and you don't get caught - anything you can think of which is going to give you a little extra edge is worth doing"

Very high moral ground, that.

Further evidence -

"13 � CANADA
In Montreal, the points were: Piquet - 54 vs Jones - 49. Piquet started from pole, but in the very first corner Jones simply ignored that the brazilian was at his side and closed the door, causing a big accident. Many cars were envolved and the race had to be stopped. Piquet took his T-car for second start, but this time he let Jones get the front. Few laps ahead the brazilian overtook him and pooled away. Then after 23 laps his engine blew-up, and Williams driver was free for celebrate the victory and also the championship, as by the rule, he would discharge only four points. (Only the best five results of half were taken into consideration)"

http://www.4mula1.ro/history/article/article5.html

Yep, seems like Sir Frank was quite happy to "sign off" on a driver with dubious ethics.

Now, that, I believe, proves my point.

ArrowsFA1

2nd January 2010, 11:54

I have no problem with Williams doing what they did....my issue is with the people who cry about the Schumacher era at Ferrari yet do not hold Frank Williams in equal contempt.

That, no two ways about it, is hypocritical.
It's not hypocritical in my view, it's simply people viewing things in a different way i.e. holding a different opinion to your own.

Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to view F1 in terms of winning alone. How teams or drivers go about winning seems to be of little or no concern, it's just the result that counts.

That's fair enough, but equally there are those who, while accepting that winning is the aim, are interested in how drivers and teams go about racing for that win.

That's why some of us see a difference between what happened at Rio and Austria. May be there are fine differences between the two incidents, but there are differences of opinion.

2nd January 2010, 12:33

That's why some of us see a difference between what happened at Rio and Austria.

Please enlighten me as to why, in your opinion, there is a difference between the two?

We know that Jones had a Number One contract and Reuttemann was contracted to hand over a lead.

What is the difference between been ordered to hand over a lead if it less than six seconds as compared to being ordered to hand over a lead of any distance?

How is one fairer than the other?

Other than one team being British and the other being Italian, I really do not see any difference between the two.

So, please, show me what the difference is that could validate your opinion.

2nd January 2010, 12:35

I maybe alone in this thought, but I find this extremely hard to believe.

That is your problem.

ArrowsFA1

2nd January 2010, 14:29

Please enlighten me as to why, in your opinion, there is a difference between the two?
In Reutemann's case, unlike Barrichello, Williams team orders were not preventing one driver from challenging for the championship in favour of the other, as evidenced by Carlos being in title contention to the very end of the season.

tinchote

2nd January 2010, 14:54

In Reutemann's case, unlike Barrichello, Williams team orders were not preventing one driver from challenging for the championship in favour of the other, as evidenced by Carlos being in title contention to the very end of the season.

I cannot agree with that. The Williams team showed no pity for Reutemann having lost the WDC, and were very happy for having won the constructors championship. And the story of the distribution -- within the team -- of chassis and engines at Las Vegas 1981 is dubious to say the least. Reutemann's car was brilliant in qualy (and he had his well earned reputation of good setup skills) and awful in the race; surprinsingly, Jones car had the exact opposite behaviour. Again, had this happened at Ferrari in MS's time, everybody here would be crying foul.

In any case, Arrows, if you say that Williams teams orders were ok and Ferrari's were not, you are just showing your bias and I can confidently accuse you of being hypocritical. Or you could explain yourself better (You are accussing the Ferrari team of having decided not to let RB win the WDC, which is a ridiculous statement, as proven by the team's behaviour in 1999 with Irvine).

Many forumers here have no issue with applying the words "cheaters" to MS and Ferrari for Austria 2002, but they won't apply them neither to Alan Jones nor Williams for Rio 1981. That's double standards :down:

F1boat

2nd January 2010, 16:57

The RoC? Schumacher was beaten by a rally driver if memory serves me as I do not pay much attention to that non-event with the ugliest cars on earth?!!!

He was beaten by the double DTM champion Mattias Ekstrom. DTM is not an easy series, as evident by the struggle of former F1 stars there. Including Hakkinen.

ArrowsFA1

2nd January 2010, 17:22

I cannot agree with that...
You may not agree tinchote but the fact remains that Reutemann was able to be in contention for the title. Quite clearly, by their team orders, Ferrari made that scenario impossible for Barrichello.

Therein rests a clear difference for me, and the question of a difference was the one I was addressing.

Incidentally, Reutemann's poor race performance in Las Vegas was due to a tyre vibration which, with the stiffly sprung cars of 1981, made his car a nightmare to drive.

In any case, Arrows, if you say that Williams teams orders were ok and Ferrari's were not, you are just showing your bias and I can confidently accuse you of being hypocritical.
I would agree with you IF the circumstances we are discussing were the same but, as I've explained, in my view they were not.

2nd January 2010, 18:37

You may not agree tinchote but the fact remains that Reutemann was able to be in contention for the title.

But only if Jones was more than six seconds behind in any race.

Hardly a level playing field.

Either you believe in fairness and equality or you don't.

By differentiating between Williams 1981 & Ferrari 2002, you do appear to be biased.

SGWilko

2nd January 2010, 18:55

Surely, Reutemann had the chance if he was able to pull away by 6 seconds.

If he was 'that' good a driver, I don't see that being a problem.

In Austria '02, RB humiliated MS by his speed and ability to drive off up the road and build a VERY big lead.....but still had to give way. Hmmmmm

Over to you buttons.......

F1boat

2nd January 2010, 20:34

SGWilko

2nd January 2010, 20:46

This is a bit hard. Maybe MS knew that Rubens will let him and wasn't pushing, who knows?

Then, that really sucks, doesn't it?

2nd January 2010, 21:02

Surely, Reutemann had the chance if he was able to pull away by 6 seconds.

If he was 'that' good a driver, I don't see that being a problem.

And, therefore, why did Jones need a clause in his contract stipulating he was Number One?

After all, if he was so good, why restrict his team-mate at all?

Nice try, Wilko, but the basis for Williams and Alan Jones having team orders enshrined in contracts does not equate to fairness.

2nd January 2010, 21:03

Then, that really sucks, doesn't it?

As much as Jones & Williams actions do, no more, no less.

2nd January 2010, 22:15

People go to GP's to see the best and fastest of the day win the race, not an obvious tactical exchange which benefits the end of the season.

Then those people should have gained more knowledge of the sport before they attended.

Anybody who didn't know team orders take place has no right to complain about the outcome of a motorsport event as it is they who are ignorant.

I think the reason Ferrari are mentioned so often is because they were the last team seen to be doing this so obviously. :)

And there is the absurdity to the claim that Ferrari's actions damaged the sport. Evidently, to some, doing it obviously is considered bad, whereas pretending you're not doing when you are is considered better.

Which is, quite frankly, bollocks.

tinchote

2nd January 2010, 23:33

You may not agree tinchote but the fact remains that Reutemann was able to be in contention for the title. Quite clearly, by their team orders, Ferrari made that scenario impossible for Barrichello.

The only proof you have of that is the fact that you like Williams and you dislike the Ferrari/MS combo. Because it could have perfectly be that Reutemann was better than RB, or that Jones was worse than MS, but you wouldn't consider that. Maybe Williams did try to hamper Reutemann and Ferrari didn't with RB; after all, one big difference is that in 1981 Piquet won the championship with 50 points in 15 races, Reutemann had 49 points (3.26 points per race) ; in 2002, RB had 77 points in 17 races (4.53 ponts per race). I don't see an obvious way to compare team support.

Also, fact is that most of the time RB was struggling even to stay behind MS. Many races that MS won RB was not second but way further down the field. RB was truly superb at Austria and Ferrari should have let him keep his victory, in my opinion. But to extrapolate that to "Ferrari gave RB no chance" is quite a leap.

tinchote

2nd January 2010, 23:36

Team orders are natural in any motorsport, but its the way they are executed that bothers people like myself. If teams have to do it, then do it using pitstops and not by getting a driver to slow down and wave his teammate by. People go to GP's to see the best and fastest of the day win the race, not an obvious tactical exchange which benefits the end of the season.

Perfect, then. So, how do you feel about what happened at Rio in 1981?

Saint Devote

2nd January 2010, 23:52

Perfect, then. So, how do you feel about what happened at Rio in 1981?

Who CARES what happened in goddam 1981!!!

Back to the present old boy - its far more interesting!

Jeez! Some people!

Valve Bounce

3rd January 2010, 02:21

Thank you for proving you have no defence.

Williams - Guilty as charged.

You couldn't charge a barn door on a bicycle!! :rolleyes:

Furthermore, I hope some of you have booked your tickets for your holiday because pino has already given strict instructions at what he doesn't want discussed on this thread.

I'm the guy waving as you go through passport control! :D

ArrowsFA1

3rd January 2010, 08:14

But only if Jones was more than six seconds behind in any race.
There's no "only" about it. The fact remains that Reutemann was in contention for the title. He only led three races in 1981. Long Beach, where Carlos felt he had given the win to Jones, Rio which we know about and Belgium which he won and where Jones crashed out.

Either you believe in fairness and equality or you don't.
So you acknowledge there are differences between the two situations? I can only assume that's the case because you're now trying to shift your argument away from differences to fairness and equality.

The only proof you have of that is the fact that you like Williams and you dislike the Ferrari/MS combo.
tinchote, the proof of my claim that Barrichello could not challenge for the title rests in the fact of Ferrari's stated reasons for asking Rubens to move over i.e. to maximise MS's points haul for his championship challenge. That's not bias, it's fact.

F1boat

3rd January 2010, 08:25

Then, that really sucks, doesn't it?

Part of the game. I didn't like the outcome of the Austrian GP and I think that it was an unnecessary decision, but I understand why Ferrari operated like that.

F1boat

3rd January 2010, 09:28

I feel the same way as I do about Austria 2002, and I don't wish to see this type switch on the track thank you very much.

You guys are getting very angry about this and maybe a new thread should be started, because I'm pretty sure this is a thread to discuss Michael Schumacher returning and not something Williams did 29 years ago.

it is because every such move of MS is considered unprecedented, this is simply not true.

3rd January 2010, 09:32

There's no "only" about it. The fact remains that Reutemann was in contention for the title. He only led three races in 1981. Long Beach, where Carlos felt he had given the win to Jones, Rio which we know about and Belgium which he won and where Jones crashed out.

In Belgium, Carlos was only free to win because Jones had crashed

As he was only free to win elsewhere if Jones wasn't in contention.

Oh yes, pal, that is real racing. Proper thoroughbred pure racing.

Laughable.

So you acknowledge there are differences between the two situations? I can only assume that's the case because you're now trying to shift your argument away from differences to fairness and equality.

Erm, since you are struggling with the concept, it is you, not me, who doesn't understand the principle of equality.

You evidently believe that Williams and Jones were being fair to Reuttemann by insisting on clauses in contracts stipulating Number One status.

You evidently believe that Ferrari were not being fair to Rubens.

There is no difference, yet you claim there is.

That encapsulates your anti-Ferrari view in a nutshell.

3rd January 2010, 09:34

There's no "only" about it.

That is not true.

There was a clause in Carlos's contract stating that very fact.

tinchote

3rd January 2010, 09:38

tinchote

3rd January 2010, 09:39

I feel the same way as I do about Austria 2002, and I don't wish to see this type switch on the track thank you very much.

Well, we completely agree on that :up:

F1boat

3rd January 2010, 10:29

Michael Schumacher was not the first to do such actions, but I think the reason his name springs to mind whenever these actions are discussed, is because he holds the record for being involved in the most amount of controversial incidents in the history of the sport. :)

Hmm, I always found Senna to be even more controversial. But IMO in both cases there are more important things than several accidents. Wins, poles, victories, dedication, determination...

ArrowsFA1

3rd January 2010, 10:51

There is no difference, yet you claim there is.
tamburello, you are setting up something new and claiming that I have said something in relation to it which I have not. I have explained how the circumstances differ in my view in this earlier exchange:

That's why some of us see a difference between what happened at Rio and Austria.

Please enlighten me as to why, in your opinion, there is a difference between the two?

In Reutemann's case, unlike Barrichello, Williams team orders were not preventing one driver from challenging for the championship in favour of the other, as evidenced by Carlos being in title contention to the very end of the season.

So, as everyone can see, I answered your question. There is a difference between the two situations and it has nothing to do with the teams involved, or fairness or equality, contrary to what you would have others believe. Regardless of the detail in his contract Reutemann was in contention for the 1981 title. Austria made clear to Rubens and the world that he would never be in contention for the 2002 title as long as he was racing alongside Michael. That is what I object to - a driver being eliminated from title contention by his team, not by his own actions or results.

Now, was it "fair" that to win a race ahead of his team-mate Reutemann had to build up a lead of 6 or more seconds. I have never claimed it was. Clearly it wasn't. That's not a level playing field between team mates, but at least he was not prevented from beating his team mate if he could and challenging for the title.

"Felt"? You are conveniently forgetting that at Long Beach, as soon as AJ passed him, the team showed the "hold positions" board.
Yes "felt". See pages 138-141 of "Williams" by Maurice Hamilton.