Another Schumacher thread.
Discussion
Looking through some old videos on my PC I found this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk2p2nRK-p4
maybe there is something special about Schumacher?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk2p2nRK-p4
maybe there is something special about Schumacher?
So why isn't he faster than Rosberg?
Traction Control.
It's mastery of TC. Letting it do more of the work and sorting out limit issues with the steering than the more conventional manual throttle input. Senna allegedly recognised this from the view from another car (1994)... which is probably even more remarkable.
Casey Stoner does the same sort of thing in MotoGP and why he seems to be on the limit with the bike more than anyone else, seemingly almost going past the limit, yet also seems to somehow get away with it.
It is a valid skill (for sure
).
There's always someone that finds the near-perfect limit with the tools they are supplied in their particular era. Nuvolari did it (4 wheel drift). Fangio did it (I guess another master of 4 wheel drift). Clark did it (another master of 4 wheel drift and advancing car setup). Gilles sometimes did it but often over did it and crashed. Senna did it (brakes, active ride and turbo). Keke (oversteer!). Mansell eventually did it (active ride in 1992). And Hamilton is doing it (brakes and perfecting the Mansell-line).
This era isn't doing Schumi favours. The conclusion must be that he had mastered one particular style of fastest lap, but can't do the same when the car requires a different, less aided, method of near-perfect limit maintenance.
Race craft (overtaking, adapting the racing line for attack or defense, and the natural quick thinking - cognitive autonomy - that goes with it) of course is a completely different skill to fastest lap, and I reckon Schumi has never been complete in that department. At least I have seen little proof of it, in part I guess because he was usually miles out in the lead, had a huge general car advantage or was driving into a competitor instead.
IMO of course and unless someone else has a better interpretation?
Traction Control.
It's mastery of TC. Letting it do more of the work and sorting out limit issues with the steering than the more conventional manual throttle input. Senna allegedly recognised this from the view from another car (1994)... which is probably even more remarkable.
Casey Stoner does the same sort of thing in MotoGP and why he seems to be on the limit with the bike more than anyone else, seemingly almost going past the limit, yet also seems to somehow get away with it.
It is a valid skill (for sure
).There's always someone that finds the near-perfect limit with the tools they are supplied in their particular era. Nuvolari did it (4 wheel drift). Fangio did it (I guess another master of 4 wheel drift). Clark did it (another master of 4 wheel drift and advancing car setup). Gilles sometimes did it but often over did it and crashed. Senna did it (brakes, active ride and turbo). Keke (oversteer!). Mansell eventually did it (active ride in 1992). And Hamilton is doing it (brakes and perfecting the Mansell-line).
This era isn't doing Schumi favours. The conclusion must be that he had mastered one particular style of fastest lap, but can't do the same when the car requires a different, less aided, method of near-perfect limit maintenance.
Race craft (overtaking, adapting the racing line for attack or defense, and the natural quick thinking - cognitive autonomy - that goes with it) of course is a completely different skill to fastest lap, and I reckon Schumi has never been complete in that department. At least I have seen little proof of it, in part I guess because he was usually miles out in the lead, had a huge general car advantage or was driving into a competitor instead.
IMO of course and unless someone else has a better interpretation?
Edited by mattikake on Sunday 20th June 01:27
mattikake said:
This era isn't doing Schumi favours. The conclusion must be that he had mastered one particular style of fastest lap, but can't do the same when the car requires a different, less aided, method of near-perfect limit maintenance.
Race craft (overtaking, adapting the racing line for attack or defense, and the natural quick thinking - cognitive autonomy - that goes with it) of course is a completely different skill to fastest lap, and I reckon Schumi has never been complete in that department. At least I have seen little proof of it, in part I guess because he was usually miles out in the lead, had a huge general car advantage or was driving into a competitor instead.
Absolutely nailed it!Race craft (overtaking, adapting the racing line for attack or defense, and the natural quick thinking - cognitive autonomy - that goes with it) of course is a completely different skill to fastest lap, and I reckon Schumi has never been complete in that department. At least I have seen little proof of it, in part I guess because he was usually miles out in the lead, had a huge general car advantage or was driving into a competitor instead.
In addition this theory also backs up the suspicions of many that during the Ferrari dominant era 2000 -2004 and before tractional control was briefly legalised, the Maranello boys were, allegedly, running a form of TC through their engine management software, written by that Polish bloke (senior moment - name anyone?)
Then there's the allegedly light car of 1995, the barge board affair, Bernie's wish for MS to be champion, Ferrari International Assistance etc etc.
Yes, Schumacher did some regrettable things that deserve criticism, but I think people overestimate how bad some of his other moves are because it is satisfying to make him look less capable/more ruthless by awful-izing them.
At Spa he closed the door on Hakkinen, but Mika wasn't even next to him. The Frentzen incident in Canada-- Schumacher came out of the pits and Heinz was going too fast when he turned in and lost it under braking. See, I can minimize/maximize things too.
And if we're gonna criticize Schumacher for moving over on Massa in the braking zone in Canada and putting Frentzen on the grass, then what about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlLOrDZlyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kWPUNmFmNQ
Some may have criticized Ham for this race, but I've also seen some say that it wasn't dirty; it was just hard, fair racing.
It's interesting to see people protect the things they like and attack what they dislike. And I'm not excluding myself. I'm aware that my affection for something can make it difficult for me to come to a correct and consistent conclusion.
At Spa he closed the door on Hakkinen, but Mika wasn't even next to him. The Frentzen incident in Canada-- Schumacher came out of the pits and Heinz was going too fast when he turned in and lost it under braking. See, I can minimize/maximize things too.
And if we're gonna criticize Schumacher for moving over on Massa in the braking zone in Canada and putting Frentzen on the grass, then what about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlLOrDZlyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kWPUNmFmNQ
Some may have criticized Ham for this race, but I've also seen some say that it wasn't dirty; it was just hard, fair racing.
It's interesting to see people protect the things they like and attack what they dislike. And I'm not excluding myself. I'm aware that my affection for something can make it difficult for me to come to a correct and consistent conclusion.
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Sunday 20th June 06:25
35secToNuvolari said:
Yes, Schumacher did some regrettable things that deserve criticism, but I think people overestimate how bad some of his other moves are because it is satisfying to make him look less capable/more ruthless by awful-izing them.
At Spa he closed the door on Hakkinen, but Mika wasn't even next to him. The Frentzen incident in Canada-- Schumacher came out of the pits and Heinz was going too fast when he turned in and lost it under braking. See, I can minimize/maximize things too.
And if we're gonna criticize Schumacher for moving over on Massa in the braking zone in Canada and putting Frentzen on the grass, then what about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlLOrDZlyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kWPUNmFmNQ
Some may have criticized Ham for this race, but I've also seen some say that it wasn't dirty; it was just hard, fair racing.
It's interesting to see people protect the things they like and attack what they dislike. And I'm not excluding myself. I'm aware that my affection for something can make it difficult for me to come to a correct and consistent conclusion.
Your point is valid and it is something that we should all guard against. What I will say with Schumacher is that it was the other way around with him. It was his driving that made me dislike him, not him who made me dislike his driving. I was excited by what I saw at Spa in the Jordan. You didn't have to be an F1 nerd to realise he was something special.At Spa he closed the door on Hakkinen, but Mika wasn't even next to him. The Frentzen incident in Canada-- Schumacher came out of the pits and Heinz was going too fast when he turned in and lost it under braking. See, I can minimize/maximize things too.
And if we're gonna criticize Schumacher for moving over on Massa in the braking zone in Canada and putting Frentzen on the grass, then what about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlLOrDZlyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kWPUNmFmNQ
Some may have criticized Ham for this race, but I've also seen some say that it wasn't dirty; it was just hard, fair racing.
It's interesting to see people protect the things they like and attack what they dislike. And I'm not excluding myself. I'm aware that my affection for something can make it difficult for me to come to a correct and consistent conclusion.
The two links, I think, show an interesting comparison. The first one is really hard racing, the stuff that memories are made of. I normally do not follow individual drivers but I have to say I find LH's driving exciting and I look forward to him being on song. I think the same with Webber, although more so this season.
The second link is much more problematical. At the time I believed that Webber would never make the corner and that LH left just enough room, and just enough is ample, but looking at it again I'm not so sure of the second point. But there is an argument either way. I can't remember Webber's post race response. It was probably very supportive of LH's driving style.
With Schumacher pulling out of the pits, it was a clear case of dangerous driving. If HH hadn't been pushed off-line he'd have had the corner without problems. There is no argument that it was MS' fault, unless you suggest that HH knew how selfish a driver MS was so should have made allowances.
The only bit in question is whether it was a genuine mistake or MS knew HH was bearing down and pulled out deliberaely as he didn't want to get stuck behind him. I know which way I go but the only evidence I have is his driving before and since the event. But whether or not I'm right, it was still extremely dangerous. Incompetance or deliberately putting another driver at risk: either way the chap should be condemned for driving that way. I think the punishment, at a time when MS/Ferrari were untouchable, was derisory.
The bit with the traction control and Senna: it was at Brazil after he span off on the last corner in the early part of the race. He sat with the marshalls for a while listening to the Benettons and he was convinced that they had traction control. Indeed one Benetton mechanic at least has confirmed it, suggesting they had automatic everything.
Whilst I agree there are different interpretations possible for most incidents in F1, some are as clear cut as it is possible to get:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYca6E6c3IM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad6l2yHTS0Y&fea...
It's odd, isn't it. Senna's morals allowed him to crash into Prost, albeit after giving him the option of dropping a place, but he felt modifying software was cheating.
35secToNuvolari said:
And if we're gonna criticize Schumacher for moving over on Massa in the braking zone in Canada and putting Frentzen on the grass, then what about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlLOrDZlyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kWPUNmFmNQ
Some may have criticized Ham for this race, but I've also seen some say that it wasn't dirty; it was just hard, fair racing.
It's a fine line, but the detail is everything. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDlLOrDZlyM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kWPUNmFmNQ
Some may have criticized Ham for this race, but I've also seen some say that it wasn't dirty; it was just hard, fair racing.
Hamilton clearly left more than a car's width for Fisi and Webber, which is more than can be said for Schumi at least *some* of the time, if not all. Senna did similar as Hamilton to Prost at Estoril '89 or Prost in Germany '90. More than a car's width = ok, if you're good enough to use it (the onus is on their competitor to be good enough), but less than a car width = good enough is an possibility...
Post-race analysis is irrelevant when it comes to a judgement that is down to heat-of-the-moment skill, which is the essence of sport that separates the good from the great afterall.
The difference is that Schumi has undeniably deliberately run people off the track and rammed people on the track. I.e. a driver like Hamilton or Senna (Senna's premeditated measured public political statements aside) are they drive hard but *always* fair, if you're 'man' enough, whereas Schumi goes byeond this, repeatedly.
What riles most me of all is that given an equal car and another driver with an equal opportunity, Schumi has proved he really aint all that great. Senna and Hamilton have proven they are, *without fail*, and so can claim 'precision hard but fairness'. Schumi never can as he was never good enough to be as precise.
Only someone proven unequalled is in a position to make auch a claim otherwise they're just a plain old bad loser.
35secToNuvolari said:
It's interesting to see people protect the things they like and attack what they dislike. And I'm not excluding myself. I'm aware that my affection for something can make it difficult for me to come to a correct and consistent conclusion.
Touche.Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Sunday 20th June 06:25
Personal emotional attachments are what makes us great humans or lowly animals, depending on your initial pov!
Edited by mattikake on Sunday 20th June 23:45
So, if one watched the Monza video one saw Hamilton put Glock on the grass in the rain, cut across Alonso's nose, and move over on Webber in the braking zone of a chicane. And that equals hard but fair.
But Schumacher squeezing Frentzen, cutting across Hakkinen's nose, and moving over on Massa in the braking zone of a chicane = dirty.
From what I can tell, the only difference lies with one's point of view.
What are peoples' opinions of Alain Prost?
But Schumacher squeezing Frentzen, cutting across Hakkinen's nose, and moving over on Massa in the braking zone of a chicane = dirty.
From what I can tell, the only difference lies with one's point of view.
What are peoples' opinions of Alain Prost?
35secToNuvolari said:
So, if one watched the Monza video one saw Hamilton put Glock on the grass in the rain, cut across Alonso's nose, and move over on Webber in the braking zone of a chicane. And that equals hard but fair.
Excluding Glock as Hamilton couldn't see him in the spray and video replays clearly show he wasn't even looking in his mirrors anyway, he was just absorbing the regular racing-line; If one watched the video you would see Alonso and Webber had at least room for their car and more.
Hard? Certainly. Fair? Certainly.
35secToNuvolari said:
But Schumacher squeezing Frentzen, cutting across Hakkinen's nose, and moving over on Massa in the braking zone of a chicane = dirty.
Ignoring Massa, as I reckon that was his misjudgement, not Schumi's deliberate tactics;Frentzen, Hakkinen, Kubica (and Hamilton in China) all had less than a car's width of track to use.
They had no choice but to use the grass, brake or make contact.
Hard? Certainly. Fair? No.
35secToNuvolari said:
From what I can tell, the only difference lies with one's point of view.
The difference, as ever, is in the detail.mattikake said:
Excluding Glock as Hamilton couldn't see him in the spray and video replays clearly show he wasn't even looking in his mirrors anyway, he was just absorbing the regular racing-line;
What? That's it? Just like that, it's explained away? He didn't see him in the spray? He was just absorbing the racing line? Glock was next to him. I'm not sure there could've been less spray between the two.
If that's your conclusion, that's fine. I'm only trying to get people to play around with point of view, be flexible, and see if anything new can be discovered.
35secToNuvolari said:
From what I can tell, the only difference lies with one's point of view.
mattikake said:
The difference, as ever, is in the detail.
Edited by 35secToNuvolari on Tuesday 22 June 03:38
35secToNuvolari said:
mattikake said:
Excluding Glock as Hamilton couldn't see him in the spray and video replays clearly show he wasn't even looking in his mirrors anyway, he was just absorbing the regular racing-line;
What? That's it? Just like that, it's explained away? He didn't see him in the spray? He was just absorbing the racing line? Glock was next to him. I'm not sure there could've been less spray between the two.
Another shameless replug of one of my own vids, but look here at 6:26 (pause it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7Kk37-53Q
Where is Hamilton looking? In his left mirror at Glock or at the apex of curva Grande, a right-hander?
There's no other detail you need for a sound conclusion.
You can replay all the frames after the chicane and leading up to this moment, and you'll see Hamilton never once checks to see where Glock is. He assumes the overtake is done and dusted, which at worst, is over-confidence.
What is your interpretation? And more importantly, why?
35secToNuvolari said:
If that's your conclusion, that's fine. I'm only trying to get people to play around with point of view, be flexible, and see if anything new can be discovered.
But the conclusion is clear-cut, so isn't this trolling?My take on it is that I don't think there's a valid excuse for Hamilton to not know where Glock is, especially as he was next to him for the entire straight. Indeed, the cause is overconfidence. My point is that the degree to which one is criticized seems to fluctuate with who is driving and who the commentator likes. It is not hard to imagine that if that were Schumacher instead of Hamilton, people would attribute the move to his arrogant or callous disregard for a fellow driver's safety, or possibly his ruthless or dirty competitiveness, and people would further highlight that he put another driver in danger in the much riskier rainy conditions. The latter point seemingly bothers nobody here.
As far as me trolling, if that is your impression, then I've somehow failed to communicate my intentions. I don't wish to stress you or anyone else out. I am interested in how people come to different conclusions, and am interested in exploring that. Cheers.
As far as me trolling, if that is your impression, then I've somehow failed to communicate my intentions. I don't wish to stress you or anyone else out. I am interested in how people come to different conclusions, and am interested in exploring that. Cheers.
mattikake said:
Another shameless replug of one of my own vids, but look here at 6:26 (pause it) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH7Kk37-53Q
I've seen a few of yours. The battle with Webber was the highlight of the season. A real thriller. There's many who wouldn't mix it with Webber whilst walking along the street.Thanks for the memories.
I don't really support drivers. I'm a team man myself, and that team is McLaren so your vids are a real treat.
35secToNuvolari said:
My take on it is that I don't think there's a valid excuse for Hamilton to not know where Glock is, especially as he was next to him for the entire straight.
Possibly not, barring inexperience. It was only his 2nd F1 season afterall and his 5th wet race in any forumla (at a quick count) and the first of any wet race where he had come under attack from behind.The point is, he wasn't looking, so how could it be a deliberate move?
Whereas Schumi has done this too many times to be genuine mistakes, is far more experienced than Hamilton, has been caught out in terms of deliberate intent many times and has made many other questionable gamesmanship-type moves besides running someone off the track.
Occam's Razor.
I don't think Schumi or Hamilton are even in the same league when it comes to sportsmanship.
35secToNuvolari said:
It is not hard to imagine that if that were Schumacher instead of Hamilton, people would attribute the move to his arrogant or callous disregard for a fellow driver's safety, or possibly his ruthless or dirty competitiveness, and people would further highlight that he put another driver in danger in the much riskier rainy conditions. The latter point seemingly bothers nobody here.
On the contrary, for me personally. For e.g. I don't hold Schumi 100% at fault for the incident with Massa in Canada. My initial impression was that it was, but having seen it a few times now, and given Massa's less than brilliant overtaking prowess (or intellect), it seems more 50/50.But you're right and I can't speak for others of course. Too many separate incidents come down to more than just pure coincidence and an already heavily tarnished reputation, so what do you expect?
35secToNuvolari said:
As far as me trolling, if that is your impression, then I've somehow failed to communicate my intentions. I don't wish to stress you or anyone else out. I am interested in how people come to different conclusions, and am interested in exploring that. Cheers.
I'm not getting annoyed. Quite neutral, even enjoying this. Makes a refreshing change for someone in the pro-Schumi camp not to get childish in IMO what is overwhelming evidence against. 
I do think you're fighting a lost cause though when as you should be able to see, I think I have a firm grasp of fair empiricism when it comes down to not having a rant at a guy you must now know I think is massively over-rated.Edited by mattikake on Monday 21st June 19:30
mattikake said:
The point is, he wasn't looking, so how could it be a deliberate move?
Ah, I did not say deliberate. And I don't think that MS's moves are all particularly deliberate (or innocent) either. I think people most often charge Schumacher with arrogance--a function of overconfidence. I think a manifestation of that attitude is that a driver takes fewer mitigating actions--their own condition dominates their attention and they do irresponsible things.I understand what you're saying, though, and that Hamilton does not have the reputation of MS and still deserves the benefit of the doubt.
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff