How many races until Schumacher has/does one of his "stunts"
Poll: How many races until Schumacher has/does one of his "stunts"
Total Members Polled: 174
Discussion
mattikake said:
...was that running someone off the road (actually at least for the 3rd time as I now remember him doing this to Hamilton in China this year)
Actually I can remember a 4th time as he did it to Frentzen in Canada too, was it in 2001?I'm now wondering what the actual count is?
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
...was that running someone off the road (actually at least for the 3rd time as I now remember him doing this to Hamilton in China this year)
Actually I can remember a 4th time as he did it to Frentzen in Canada too, was it in 2001?I'm now wondering what the actual count is?
Mind you, I was wrong in one way: I reckoned he'd kill someone one day.
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
...was that running someone off the road (actually at least for the 3rd time as I now remember him doing this to Hamilton in China this year)
Actually I can remember a 4th time as he did it to Frentzen in Canada too, was it in 2001?I'm now wondering what the actual count is?
(What a t*rd he really is)
CiderwithCerbie said:
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
...was that running someone off the road (actually at least for the 3rd time as I now remember him doing this to Hamilton in China this year)
Actually I can remember a 4th time as he did it to Frentzen in Canada too, was it in 2001?I'm now wondering what the actual count is?
(What a t*rd he really is)
plg said:
CiderwithCerbie said:
mattikake said:
mattikake said:
...was that running someone off the road (actually at least for the 3rd time as I now remember him doing this to Hamilton in China this year)
Actually I can remember a 4th time as he did it to Frentzen in Canada too, was it in 2001?I'm now wondering what the actual count is?
(What a t*rd he really is)
Edited by CiderwithCerbie on Wednesday 16th June 12:01
CiderwithCerbie said:
The trouble with Scumsucker isn't that he's a multi-WC or the racing incidents per se, it's the persisting visual evidence that he meant to do exactly what he did, repeatedly, and hang the consequences, added to the 'What me Guv?' attitude (in the proper accent obviously). For some of us the stink of his behaviour is not justifiable competitiveness, just wilful selfish arrogance and bad sportsmanship. Behaviour and demeanour which has sullied the F1 game for years and yup John McEnroe did the same to Tennis for me...
Some fair points. Without getting massively into the whole Schum. debate, there have been some equally shocking moves made by drivers through the field over the years, any of which, in their own right would have tainted the sport (in the same way people view Schum.) had that driver been leader, or had they been a WDC.My view (and just my view, not asking anyone to agree or convince them otherwise) is that we have a rose tinted view of the past years of racing - it's only in more recent years we have had 100% coverage that allows every move of every driver to be analysed. Who knows what we missed from "great" drivers of teh 50's, 60's and 70's before total coverage was available?
Interesting analogy re: McEnroe - hadn't thought of it like that before.
Does anybody think that, to take a modern young driver at random, Seb Vettel, would think twice about ramming his rival for the WDC off the road?
& if the answer is no, he wouldn't, then who is responsible? Who gave him the idea that this would be the best way to "win"?
Fact is the younger drivers have seen what Schumacher got away with & far too many are prepared to emulate him. Particularly as he still gives the impression that he'd do it again if required.
I'll admit that perhaps Schumacher was possibly influenced by the Senna/Prost silliness if that helps anybody.
& if the answer is no, he wouldn't, then who is responsible? Who gave him the idea that this would be the best way to "win"?
Fact is the younger drivers have seen what Schumacher got away with & far too many are prepared to emulate him. Particularly as he still gives the impression that he'd do it again if required.
I'll admit that perhaps Schumacher was possibly influenced by the Senna/Prost silliness if that helps anybody.
The Kubica move at the weekend is getting way to much air time - why? Vettel's move at Turkey went unpunished (which appeared to be intentional) and far worse than some wheel to wheel racing in Canada. We all moan at processional races don't we?
Seems MS can't win either way, damed if he does and damed if he doesn't.
Seems MS can't win either way, damed if he does and damed if he doesn't.
plg said:
Without getting massively into the whole Schum. debate, there have been some equally shocking moves made by drivers through the field over the years, any of which, in their own right would have tainted the sport (in the same way people view Schum.) had that driver been leader, or had they been a WDC.
My view (and just my view, not asking anyone to agree or convince them otherwise) is that we have a rose tinted view of the past years of racing - it's only in more recent years we have had 100% coverage that allows every move of every driver to be analysed. Who knows what we missed from "great" drivers of teh 50's, 60's and 70's before total coverage was available?
The driving was more considerate in the decades leading up to the 80s as cars were considerably more dangerous in an accident, circuits were almost designed to injure and maim and the marshalling was often hit or miss. Drivers didn't put one another into such situations as in any accident either car could come off worse. Nowadays accidents at 180 result in 'bruising'.My view (and just my view, not asking anyone to agree or convince them otherwise) is that we have a rose tinted view of the past years of racing - it's only in more recent years we have had 100% coverage that allows every move of every driver to be analysed. Who knows what we missed from "great" drivers of teh 50's, 60's and 70's before total coverage was available?
I saw an accident at Brands one time, in a saloon car race, where the driver was killed yet it was at around 50mph. And I was there when Herbert did his ankles in. Didn't see the accident, I was at paddock, but the driving was almost gentlemanly compared to modern day F1. Yet still someone's career almost ended.
Schumacher's move on Villeneuve, whilst much hyped, wasn't that dangerous. But one wonders if he would have pulled across in front of Hill if both had been in Lotus 49s.
Kubica's dive into the pits was at best reckless. Would he have risked the same in a Lotus 21?
I'm a 100% supporter of the modern safety features of F1 from the design of the cars to the health care. Indeed it is a shame they weren't brought in earlier when such things were first suggested to the FIA. But I have to say I think it has contributed to a falling off in driving standards. I remember Villeneuve being praised for his bravery when he piled it up at Eau Rouge. Yet in the days of the DFV, cars used to go through there on narrow tyres and on even narrower safety margins. If they lost it they often lost something else as well.
I remember Senna and Mansell playing chicken along the top straight at Brands the year they first installed a speed trap on the start/finish line. Mansell 'won' as everyone knew he would, but I bet he wouldn't have put his car into the slide had it been 20 years earlier. Or so completely trusted the brakes and tyres.
So I think that modern, let's be generous, robust driving is not something we can lay at the door of Schumacher, much as I would like to.
Derek Smith said:
...
I'm a 100% supporter of the modern safety features of F1 from the design of the cars to the health care. Indeed it is a shame they weren't brought in earlier when such things were first suggested to the FIA. But I have to say I think it has contributed to a falling off in driving standards. ...
Totally agree. And I think the same thing applies to road driving standards.I'm a 100% supporter of the modern safety features of F1 from the design of the cars to the health care. Indeed it is a shame they weren't brought in earlier when such things were first suggested to the FIA. But I have to say I think it has contributed to a falling off in driving standards. ...
(I often have mixed thoughts when drivers moan about the safety of certain circuits though. Surely it is within their power to minimise the risk, and making circuits more anodyne is contributing to the perceived dullness of the sport).
Derek Smith said:
The driving was more considerate in the decades leading up to the 80s as cars were considerably more dangerous in an accident, circuits were almost designed to injure and maim and the marshalling was often hit or miss. Drivers didn't put one another into such situations as in any accident either car could come off worse. Nowadays accidents at 180 result in 'bruising'.
I saw an accident at Brands one time, in a saloon car race, where the driver was killed yet it was at around 50mph. And I was there when Herbert did his ankles in. Didn't see the accident, I was at paddock, but the driving was almost gentlemanly compared to modern day F1. Yet still someone's career almost ended.
Schumacher's move on Villeneuve, whilst much hyped, wasn't that dangerous. But one wonders if he would have pulled across in front of Hill if both had been in Lotus 49s.
Kubica's dive into the pits was at best reckless. Would he have risked the same in a Lotus 21?
I'm a 100% supporter of the modern safety features of F1 from the design of the cars to the health care. Indeed it is a shame they weren't brought in earlier when such things were first suggested to the FIA. But I have to say I think it has contributed to a falling off in driving standards. I remember Villeneuve being praised for his bravery when he piled it up at Eau Rouge. Yet in the days of the DFV, cars used to go through there on narrow tyres and on even narrower safety margins. If they lost it they often lost something else as well.
I remember Senna and Mansell playing chicken along the top straight at Brands the year they first installed a speed trap on the start/finish line. Mansell 'won' as everyone knew he would, but I bet he wouldn't have put his car into the slide had it been 20 years earlier. Or so completely trusted the brakes and tyres.
So I think that modern, let's be generous, robust driving is not something we can lay at the door of Schumacher, much as I would like to.
I'm guessing that Stirling Moss's quote regarding 'F1 becoming too safe' relates to this. Drivers seem to have lost respect for eachother as the consequences are far less in previous decades.I saw an accident at Brands one time, in a saloon car race, where the driver was killed yet it was at around 50mph. And I was there when Herbert did his ankles in. Didn't see the accident, I was at paddock, but the driving was almost gentlemanly compared to modern day F1. Yet still someone's career almost ended.
Schumacher's move on Villeneuve, whilst much hyped, wasn't that dangerous. But one wonders if he would have pulled across in front of Hill if both had been in Lotus 49s.
Kubica's dive into the pits was at best reckless. Would he have risked the same in a Lotus 21?
I'm a 100% supporter of the modern safety features of F1 from the design of the cars to the health care. Indeed it is a shame they weren't brought in earlier when such things were first suggested to the FIA. But I have to say I think it has contributed to a falling off in driving standards. I remember Villeneuve being praised for his bravery when he piled it up at Eau Rouge. Yet in the days of the DFV, cars used to go through there on narrow tyres and on even narrower safety margins. If they lost it they often lost something else as well.
I remember Senna and Mansell playing chicken along the top straight at Brands the year they first installed a speed trap on the start/finish line. Mansell 'won' as everyone knew he would, but I bet he wouldn't have put his car into the slide had it been 20 years earlier. Or so completely trusted the brakes and tyres.
So I think that modern, let's be generous, robust driving is not something we can lay at the door of Schumacher, much as I would like to.
Car safety & medical/fire facilities im 100% but track 'safety' has gone too far on modern tracks IMO.
Regarding Schumacher and his 'stunts', i've just been reading up a little on our friend Fernando Alonso and it's surprising just how much controversy he's been involved in on the track. (Atleast 2 brake testing incidents included)
Murph7355 said:
And I think the same thing applies to road driving standards.
I'd say yes and no regarding road safety. IMO one of the problems with modern road driving is that with all the remoteness a modern car gives you from the road, it gives you a slightly false sense of invincibility and hence people drive like there is no consequence to their actions.Sadly, there are still many people killed on public roads which people don't get a reality check to until it's too late.
Let me try to go in the opposite direction.
The move is at 1:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E5Pxmvz0r8&fea...
1997 was more Villeneuve's fault than Michael's. If one were to watch the video closely, one can see that Villeneuve committed to making the move when he was still behind Schumacher. Because he had decided to make the move no matter what, he braked so late and didn't leave himself any margin to abort the move. One can see that Michael's nose is pointed towards the apex, yet Villeneuve's is still pointed straight. Ville's wheels are still pointed straight because he can't turn the wheel without lighting the tires up. After Villeneuve swipes Schumi's nose, we see him start to turn the wheel and his tires finally catch fire. He still can't turn into the corner. Then he slows and turns. At that time in the video, we see Ville's teammate come in on the correct trajectory, showing just how wrong Jacques got it. Michael got blamed because he had a bit of oversteer on entry and counter-steered, then put his lock back on. That's a big move of the hands, and that's what people focused on--people thought that it was him ramming the side of Jacques.
(Now, after reading this thread, I think I'm supposed to add some sort of matter of fact statement that pokes a bit)
It's a common misconception, really. People overreacted too quickly and without a proper review. Villeneuve must still be laughing that Michael caught the blame for it.
This is the position I'm ready to defend. But to keep my tone light:
The move is at 1:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E5Pxmvz0r8&fea...
1997 was more Villeneuve's fault than Michael's. If one were to watch the video closely, one can see that Villeneuve committed to making the move when he was still behind Schumacher. Because he had decided to make the move no matter what, he braked so late and didn't leave himself any margin to abort the move. One can see that Michael's nose is pointed towards the apex, yet Villeneuve's is still pointed straight. Ville's wheels are still pointed straight because he can't turn the wheel without lighting the tires up. After Villeneuve swipes Schumi's nose, we see him start to turn the wheel and his tires finally catch fire. He still can't turn into the corner. Then he slows and turns. At that time in the video, we see Ville's teammate come in on the correct trajectory, showing just how wrong Jacques got it. Michael got blamed because he had a bit of oversteer on entry and counter-steered, then put his lock back on. That's a big move of the hands, and that's what people focused on--people thought that it was him ramming the side of Jacques.
(Now, after reading this thread, I think I'm supposed to add some sort of matter of fact statement that pokes a bit)
It's a common misconception, really. People overreacted too quickly and without a proper review. Villeneuve must still be laughing that Michael caught the blame for it.
This is the position I'm ready to defend. But to keep my tone light:
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Monday 21st June 09:41
^ You've got to be kidding surely?!
Must be a first. I've never seen someone try to defend Schumi over the obviousness of that incident.
All I will say is, Schumi deliberately turned into Villeneuve AFTER he got alongside [in an attempt to damage his car or take him out]. He was closely scrutinised by the stewards and the FIA, and DSQ'd from the WDC for this if you remember? No-one has been DSQ'd from a WDC for a move they pulled before. That's a measure of how bad it was.
I'll let the wolves do the rest.
Also, your bias is now extremely clear.
Must be a first. I've never seen someone try to defend Schumi over the obviousness of that incident.
All I will say is, Schumi deliberately turned into Villeneuve AFTER he got alongside [in an attempt to damage his car or take him out]. He was closely scrutinised by the stewards and the FIA, and DSQ'd from the WDC for this if you remember? No-one has been DSQ'd from a WDC for a move they pulled before. That's a measure of how bad it was.
I'll let the wolves do the rest.
Also, your bias is now extremely clear.
Edited by mattikake on Monday 21st June 10:58
mattikake said:
^ You've got to be kidding surely?!
Schumi deliberately turned into Villeneuve AFTER he got alongside [in an attempt to damage his car or take him out]. He was closely scrutinised by the stewards and the FIA, and DSQ'd from the WDC for this if you remember? No-one has been DSQ'd from a WDC for a move they pulled before. That's a measure of how bad it was.
Also, your bias is now extremely clear.
Schumi deliberately turned into Villeneuve AFTER he got alongside [in an attempt to damage his car or take him out]. He was closely scrutinised by the stewards and the FIA, and DSQ'd from the WDC for this if you remember? No-one has been DSQ'd from a WDC for a move they pulled before. That's a measure of how bad it was.
Also, your bias is now extremely clear.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff