There! I started one. Resume arguments here.
There! I started one. Resume arguments here.
Schumacher shouldn't have won the 1994 title in an illegal car, and deliberately pushing Damon Hill off the track to take the title after he messed up.Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
:laugh: :bounce: :beer:Quote:
Originally Posted by theugsquirrel
Ferrari's Lorenzo Bandini deliberately took BRM's Graham Hill out of the race to ensure that Ferrari team leader John Surtees would win the 1964 Drivers' Championship ;)
SchM running Mika into a concrete wall in Macau? Anyone remember that?
Sorry, double post. :(
What the heck is happening in this forum, I post and nothing happens, then I post again and I get multiple posts? I have been getting extreme Vertigo attacks for the last three weeks, but this is crazy!! :(
I still think it's disgraceful the way Rene Arnoux deliberately tried to run the glorious Ferrari of Gilles Villeneuve off the road time after time in the closing laps of the 1979 French GP. Absolutely appalling and not entertaining in the slightest.
Well, Lewis Hamilton only won the WDC because he was in the best car.
Woops, sorry. Ment to post this next year. :D
And what about the way Fangio bullied Peter Collins into handing over his car in 1956?
Or Stirling Moss winning the 1958 World Championship after getting Hawthorn disqualified in Portugal ..... oh, hang on .....
All the WDC's are worthless, because the champions had a top car in their use.
End of story! Someone send all the trophies over to Yuji Ide!Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfby7GaMXmoQuote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Racing incident, two drivers fighting for the same piece of asphalt.
All very easy to point the finger at Schumi but not at Hill.
Hill came from nowhere and wasn't even ahead of Schumi.
You can easily argue it was dumb move from Hill because he bounces off the kerbs and into Schumi, not to mention Hill did a similar move at Silverstone '95.
And at the end, Hill was gracious in defeat and still is today.
Schumachers car was damaged was it not yet he turned in.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
IIRC, Schumy said he had no steering at the time. Hmmmmm!!
As for impartiality, I was a fan of Schumacher until that point in time.
But... This is supposed to be a fun thread :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
That may pass if Schumacher didn't shunt the wall the previous corner and damage his car.
But to defend your position so aggressively after you shunt your car into the wall isn't very sporting.
And Patrick Head has admitted they'd have made an official complaint if it weren't for Senna's death that season - they didn't want more upset in F1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
Your posts over last few days do show that great minds do indeed think alike :) lol.
This incident also impacted me big time. I always supported Damon, but that incident reinforced it, and became a huge Damon fan - he acted like a true gentleman with regards to this incident.
And I became a so called "anti-schumacher" from that day onwards - though like to think I can be unbiased.
I then went on to support Montoya because of that move he made on Schumacher in Brazil 2001.
And an Alonso fan from when he beat Schumacher in an inferior car.
What do expect a driver fighting for WDC to do? Retire on the spot?Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
If any of you had been in Schumi's position you would've done exactly the same thing. You wouldn't give away the WDC that easily.
Part of the art of defensive driving is you have to prepared to go wheel to wheel and not give an inch. Certainly you have to draw the line but sometimes that line has a grey area ie. racing incident.
If it was any other set of drivers they would definitely say racing incident eg. Button/DC clash was similar to Adelaide and most people here said it was a racing incident.
Very easy to point fingers at Schumi but it's of the few occasions where I'm prepared to give the benefit of doubt.
That incident was through the sequence of left-right 90degree corners, doubly hard to predict where your opponent is compared to the back straight of Jerez where Schumi was definitely was in the wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Q: What do expect a driver fighting for WDC to do? Retire on the spot?
A: Yes. If you damage your car, you don't keep on defending so aggreesively.
If his engine had blown, you wouldn't have expected him to defend so aggressively, if he'd had puncture, same again - so why is it ok for him to defend when he's damaged his car?
And I can garantuee you I WOULD NOT have done exactly what he did.
I don't see defending like that as a grey area, he overstepped the line...full stop (in my opinion).
Which DC/Button clash are you refering to? They've had a few, but I don't remember any where one had damaged his car and still defended.
And finally, you say "That incident was through the sequence of left-right 90degree corners, doubly hard to predict where your opponent is compared to the back straight of Jerez where Schumi was definitely was in the wrong."
Are you claiming Schumacher didn't know Damon was on the inside of him?
1. The car was not illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
2. Hill drove into Michael. Watch the replay.
I remember being disgusted at Schumi after that race but that was largely reinforced by the British media.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Murray Walker gave Schumi the benefit of doubt and initially I thought he was an old fool.
Schumi was absolute genius in 1995 and changed my view.
Schumi is a racer, you don't give an inch to your opponent. That's why you have those fantastic battles with JPM, Ralf and Alonso.
There's a thread on defensive driving. Some drivers could learn a thing or two from Schumi and some things that definitely aren't recommended!
Another can of worms has been opened and I've decided to give my contribution too.
We actually don't know, how damaged the car was after hitting the wall, but after rejoining the track it looked at least drivable and it was a logical decision to defend position.
I'd say the incident was 50-50. If MS's car was really damaged, then why on earth did Hill need to be impatient and rush? Wait for a few more corners and see, how MS's car behaves, then decide, how to attack during the rest of the race. There were a lot of laps still to go.
I'd say it was lack of quick thinking and situation evaluation from Hill's part, while Schumacher adapted to the sudden situation quicker and took the maximum of it.
Damon did indeed take it very well publicly which is to his eternal credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Even in private, he just shrugged it off as if to say "we all know what happened and it won't change anything".
I have always admired Schumachers ability and that's what made it all the harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
He had the ability to be the greatest ever but because of things like this, will always be tainted in my opinion.
Monty was great to watch. A real Bar Room slugger who didn't give a sh*t about who's toes he stood on. Could you imagine him and Alonso as team mates :laugh:
That's a very valid point. With hindsight, knowing as we do now that Schumys car was damaged, it would have been better to wait.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
However, when a driver goes off and you see a chance to get past, what driver wouldn't have a go at him?
I'm also pretty sure that Schumacher claimed he had no steering. In that case, how did he push Hill over to the left first of all and when Hill changed to the inside line, steer to the right to crash into him?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQC_LQI1Aiw
But, it's ancient history now and probably better to take Damons lead and let it go.
That makes you a quitter in my book. Pretty sure there's team managers out there who would say the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Bahrain this year. OK neither car was damaged previously but both fighting for same piece of tarmac.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
What Murray Walker referred to is that there's a single racing line through those corners ie. outside, cut into apex, plus the concrete walls on the inside of corners are like blind spots and Damon came from nowhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
1: Ok, my bad, car was fully legal when racing, it had illegal parts on it such as traction control, which was fully functional, but they never used it.....Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
2: Hill was in the inside, Schumacher kept on racing line despite knowing Hill was on inside and had a damaged car.
Make that what you want, but to me thats pretty unsporting attitude to take. I've messed up, damaged my car, may as well take out my opponent.
Because Damon Hill isn't a mind reader and doesn't know. He sees a slow moving Bennetton and makes the most of an opportunity.Quote:
Originally Posted by jens
How people can actually compliment Schumacher on his fast thinking on this matter.....well I dunno, we obviously have different values.
In my books, it makes me sporting and honest. What can I say, I wouldn't want to win a title by taking out my opponent unfairly.Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Yeah, niether car was damaged....so whats point in even comparing them?
And yeah, Hill was previously 4 odd seconds behind. Yet comes from nowhere because of the speed difference. What Hill meant to do? Come to a standstill and drive behind MS, or go for the inside? Common sense would suggest go for inside.
I honestly cannot understand how people can honestly say MS was in the right on this subject.
IIRC Hill did not see MS go off track and hit the wall. He came around the corner, saw a slow moving Benetton, felt there was an opportunity and went for a gap. Rather like Jerez MS realised (IMHO) that all was lost (due to the damaged Benetton) and turned in on Hill.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
In hindsight, had Hill known, he would have waited and would easily have passed the stricken Benetton, but he didn't know, and as far as he was concerned this was his chance to win the race and the title.
Then you don't understand how an ultra competitive, driven-to-win, mind works.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
Motor racing is a ruthless, cut-throat business and nice guys don't win. That news shouldn't be shocking to anyone.
I'm sorry Wedge but you can't get away with that one :laugh:Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
Hill was a few seconds behind him, he knew that.
MS drove left across the track and changed to the righ when Hill did mirroring his move.
;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Theres a difference between being ultra competitive and unsporting.
The basic principles of being competitive lie in competition. To win you have to beat your competition.
Being unsporting, you unfairingly ridding or gaining advantage over your competition in order to win.
So criticise me as much as you like for standing by my values, but I'll never agree and accept unsporting behaviour in F1.
In same way I'm sure most of you would agree an athlete in olympics should be disqualified if taking drugs or tripping over a competitor. Its unsporting. But it seems for some this should be accepted in F1.
That's fine but it's wrong for people to claim there was no intention.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
If someone says to me "yeah, OK, he knew that he would lose the place as his car was damaged so he made sure they both didn't finish" then I would at least have respect for the person being honest about it. I may have strong opinions about the incident in question but that's different.
I'm not saying Schumi was completely in the right. It was a racing incident because there's different arguments for and against Hill/Schumi.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
It does appear Hill was in the wrong. At first glance its as if he punted Schumi off!
Senna went for the inside at Suzuka 1990. But that doesn't necessarily mean he was in the right (pun not intended) because there was known malicious intent. If Senna kept his mouth shut would he still gotten away with it?
I think (and it is a theory that some prominent talking-heads have also suggested) that if Michael had a weakness, it was in his split-second moments of judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Knock-on
I do not believe it was premeditated, as I don't believe Jerez 97 was the result of a masterplan, and I don't believe that Schumacher had a moral issue with turning in at that moment purely because he was in racing mode.
To crucify somebody for something premediated, as a believe Senna at Suzuka 90 was (don't have to believe it, he admitted as much) is one thing, but I never thought Michael deliberately carried out any of his controversial moments behind the wheel with the mindset that "this is wrong, but feck it"...I think it was more "Feck! What Can I Do?" panic than evidence of a dark, calculating soul.
It was not pretty, but I really don't believe that in that moment Michael had the ability to remove himself from the instant and think "oh no, best not".
Somebody with that fierce competitive instinct cannot just take time-out until after the event.
If you recall, he was genuinely surprised by the feelings of resentment against him after Jerez 97....which, while in no way endorsing them, does for me make it clear that it wasn't the act of a totally unscrupulous bxxxxxd that many have claimed it was. Same applies to Adelaide 94.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
Me neither, in no way am I suggesting he pre-planned all of this. Adelaide clip, that corner when they hit, in full speed we are talking 1 second max!
Can I take it you believe that Schumacher drove into Hill (or defended) knowhing he was about to lose the title?
Despite his criticisms on Schumi, DC said he slightly regrets not being more selfish, ignoring team orders. Apparantly after the chequered flag at Adelaide 1998 he said "I'm effing finished doing charity work" over the radio.Quote:
Originally Posted by tamburello
1. Fact. The car was legal.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
2. Watch the replay. Hill drove into the side of Michael. How does Michael drive into Hill when he is in front of Hill :crazy: Now Michael into Jacques 1997, that was Michael driving into someone !!!
Who do you support?Quote:
Originally Posted by wedge
No, because that's not what I'm saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by PolePosition_1
I don't think that, in that split-second, Michael had any other thought than "turn in".
I do not believe he was doing it with the knowledge that he was about to lose the title if he didn't.
I don't think he was capable of making judgements in moments like that. That is the 'weakness' oh his that I'm referring to.
I know from my own (much, much lesser level) racing that I'm more inclined, having made a mistake (and do I make them!) for my first and only reaction to be to get back on line and hold the position than think "I know this will feck him up too".
I've already said.Quote:
Originally Posted by 555-04Q2
1: the car was legal. It had illegal components in it which were fully functioning, but they never used it ...make of that what you want. Personally I don't see point in having a system in the car if you not going to use it. But each to their own.
2: Hill was in the inside. Michael kept on racing line knowing he had a damaged car, and driving at a much slower speed than Hill. Hill was on the inside, so of course technically he went into Michael, but Hill had the right of way. MS was driving much slower in a damaged car, you don't defend until collision when your in that position.