Is this the end for Kimi?

[CiderwithCerbie]

Heebeegeetee said:

I'm just trying to think of one area in which Michael might be less talented than Kimi.

You're right Kimi just can't compete with the sheer level of arrogance, cheating and general scumsucking MS achieved during his F1 years.

[stephen300o]

CiderwithCerbie said:

Heebeegeetee said:

I'm just trying to think of one area in which Michael might be less talented than Kimi.

You're right Kimi just can't compete with the sheer level of arrogance, cheating and general scumsucking MS achieved during his F1 years.

MS? don't you mean Ron Dennis, his the one who thinks his cars should finish first and second every race, somewhat arrogant no? and going to court for cheating, don't know about scumsucking? I presume thats some hate filled nonsense.

[flemke]

stephen300o said:

CiderwithCerbie said:

Heebeegeetee said:

I'm just trying to think of one area in which Michael might be less talented than Kimi.

You're right Kimi just can't compete with the sheer level of arrogance, cheating and general scumsucking MS achieved during his F1 years.

MS? don't you mean Ron Dennis, his the one who thinks his cars should finish first and second every race, somewhat arrogant no? and going to court for cheating, don't know about scumsucking? I presume thats some hate filled nonsense.

I've always though that "CiderwithCerbie" was one of the best user names on PH, so I'm with him.

[FourWheelDrift]

stephen300o said:

MS? don't you mean Ron Dennis, his the one who thinks his cars should finish first and second every race, somewhat arrogant no? .

It's every team managers desire to get their cars to finish 1st & 2nd at every race That's the whole point of entering 2 cars in every race.

[Mojocvh]

DUH!

[stephen300o]

wearing these goggles?

[CiderwithCerbie]

flemke said:

I've always though that "CiderwithCerbie" was one of the best user names on PH, so I'm with him.

Very grateful for your support but having Just viewed your Mac F1 'Ring videos - I'm just not in your league mate!!!


Message to self must do the Buddist thing & stop insulting MS - there has to be some good in everyone..........

Edited by CiderwithCerbie on Saturday 14th July 12:14

[stephen300o]

Some drivers are very much misunderstood, like Schuey and Kimi.
people say that Lewis(i'm faster than anyone else, i've just got bad tyres and more fuel)Hamilton is humble.

[flemke]

CiderwithCerbie said:

flemke said:

I've always though that "CiderwithCerbie" was one of the best user names on PH, so I'm with him.

Very grateful for your support but having Just viewed your Mac F1 'Ring videos - I'm just not in your league mate!!!

I didn't even know that those videos were included in my profile until just now when you implied that and I had a look. A bit embarrassing, actually.
Don't go by those; I was just crawling around, both because the purpose of the driving was to test some geometry changes that had just been made, and because at the time the car's handling was a bit...challenging.

CiderwithCerbie said:

Message to self must do the Buddist thing & stop insulting MS - there has to be some good in everyone..........

There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones.

Cheers.

[stephen300o]

"There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones."

You mean the Hamilton chop?
He spoke to Ron, but went to Ferrari instead

[flemke]

stephen300o said:

"There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones."

You mean the Hamilton chop?
He spoke to Ron, but went to Ferrari instead

Why don't we wait until, in the season's ultimate race, Hamilton tries to guarantee a championship for himself by deliberately crashing into his rival in an attempt to eliminate him?
On second thoughts, why don't we wait until Hamilton does that in two separate years?

After he's done that, twice, Hamilton can deliberately park his car unsafely on the circuit in order to deny his main rival a chance to compete for pole.

If Hamilton were to do those things, he wouldn't be at Michael's lofty level of unsporting conduct, but he'd be making progress.

[stephen300o]

flemke said:

stephen300o said:

"There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones."

You mean the Hamilton chop?
He spoke to Ron, but went to Ferrari instead

Why don't we wait until, in the season's ultimate race, Hamilton tries to guarantee a championship for himself by deliberately crashing into his rival in an attempt to eliminate him?
On second thoughts, why don't we wait until Hamilton does that in two separate years?

After he's done that, twice, Hamilton can deliberately park his car unsafely on the circuit in order to deny his main rival a chance to compete for pole.

If Hamilton were to do those things, he wouldn't be at Michael's lofty level of unsporting conduct, but he'd be making progress.

The villeneuve incident was a moment of hotheadedness and panic, I don't think the other ones were deliberate at all.

[flemke]

stephen300o said:

flemke said:

stephen300o said:

"There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones."

You mean the Hamilton chop?
He spoke to Ron, but went to Ferrari instead

Why don't we wait until, in the season's ultimate race, Hamilton tries to guarantee a championship for himself by deliberately crashing into his rival in an attempt to eliminate him?
On second thoughts, why don't we wait until Hamilton does that in two separate years?

After he's done that, twice, Hamilton can deliberately park his car unsafely on the circuit in order to deny his main rival a chance to compete for pole.

If Hamilton were to do those things, he wouldn't be at Michael's lofty level of unsporting conduct, but he'd be making progress.

The villeneuve incident was a moment of hotheadedness and panic, I don't think the other ones were deliberate at all.

Adelaide '94:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5H0w-pEe90

He makes an unforced error and drives his car into a concrete wall.
After his now-crippled car has bounced off the wall, he first swings in front of Hill's rapidly-closing car on the outside, and then, after Hill has already begun to make a normal inside move to the apex, Schumacher abruptly chops down on him.
Sorry, my friend, but when you've just crashed your car into an immovable object and only by happenstance bounced back onto the circuit, you don't assume the racing line and cut off healthy cars that are now much faster than you and about to overtake you.
Even if it had been unintentional, an honourable man would have put up his hand after the race and said, "Technically I may be champion, but after today I don't deserve it."


Jerez '97:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bJzrByirI

Do you really believe that Michael Schumacher, the world's most calculating, thinking-on-his feet driver, the guy who could carry on lengthy, detailed conversations with his pit crew during a race whilst he was opening gaps on the competition, just panicked and allowed an alien force to overpower him, take control of his body, and irresistibly rotate his hands clockwise at the exact instant that Villeneuve was abreast of him?
If this really was such a moment-of-madness, why did it take Schumacher many years before he even admitted that he had driven into Villeneuve and had been in the wrong?


Monaco '06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jcHrHUJdu0

When I saw it as it was happening, like many others I believed that Rascasse must have been an honest mistake. After all, how could anyone - least of all a seven-times champion - deliberately do such an outrageous thing?
Having looked at the footage many times since, it is as plain as can be that he did what he did intentionally.
Look at the steering angles - see how he adds too much lock early, then straightens the wheel to aim towards the Armco, but then doesn't even bother to try turning again to get the car past the barrier.
Think of how many times in his career Schumacher spun his car, and nonetheless managed to keep his engine running (to his credit), yet this one time he unavoidably stalled it?
Where are the locking front wheels? Where is the tyre smoke? At what point did the slip angles of the tyres become unsustainable?

Here again, suppose we give Schumey the benefit of the doubt: another moment of madness. Why can't the guy be man enough to put his hand up and admit what he did, even whilst qualifying (no pun intended) his admission with an insistence that he had just reacted stupidly, for which he was now apologising?

With Schumacher, the "injuries" happened when he drove dirty. To the injuries, the insults were added after the fact, when he would innocently protest, "Who, me?"

A fantastically effective racing driver in many ways, but one who acted dishonourably too many times to be included amongst the all-time greats.

[stephen300o]

flemke said:

stephen300o said:

flemke said:

stephen300o said:

"There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones."

You mean the Hamilton chop?
He spoke to Ron, but went to Ferrari instead

Why don't we wait until, in the season's ultimate race, Hamilton tries to guarantee a championship for himself by deliberately crashing into his rival in an attempt to eliminate him?
On second thoughts, why don't we wait until Hamilton does that in two separate years?

After he's done that, twice, Hamilton can deliberately park his car unsafely on the circuit in order to deny his main rival a chance to compete for pole.

If Hamilton were to do those things, he wouldn't be at Michael's lofty level of unsporting conduct, but he'd be making progress.

The villeneuve incident was a moment of hotheadedness and panic, I don't think the other ones were deliberate at all.

Adelaide '94:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5H0w-pEe90

He makes an unforced error and drives his car into a concrete wall.
After his now-crippled car has bounced off the wall, he first swings in front of Hill's rapidly-closing car on the outside, and then, after Hill has already begun to make a normal inside move to the apex, Schumacher abruptly chops down on him.
Sorry, my friend, but when you've just crashed your car into an immovable object and only by happenstance bounced back onto the circuit, you don't assume the racing line and cut off healthy cars that are now much faster than you and about to overtake you.
Even if it had been unintentional, an honourable man would have put up his hand after the race and said, "Technically I may be champion, but after today I don't deserve it."


Jerez '97:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bJzrByirI

Do you really believe that Michael Schumacher, the world's most calculating, thinking-on-his feet driver, the guy who could carry on lengthy, detailed conversations with his pit crew during a race whilst he was opening gaps on the competition, just panicked and allowed an alien force to overpower him, take control of his body, and irresistibly rotate his hands clockwise at the exact instant that Villeneuve was abreast of him?
If this really was such a moment-of-madness, why did it take Schumacher many years before he even admitted that he had driven into Villeneuve and had been in the wrong?


Monaco '06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jcHrHUJdu0

When I saw it as it was happening, like many others I believed that Rascasse must have been an honest mistake. After all, how could anyone - least of all a seven-times champion - deliberately do such an outrageous thing?
Having looked at the footage many times since, it is as plain as can be that he did what he did intentionally.
Look at the steering angles - see how he adds too much lock early, then straightens the wheel to aim towards the Armco, but then doesn't even bother to try turning again to get the car past the barrier.
Think of how many times in his career Schumacher spun his car, and nonetheless managed to keep his engine running (to his credit), yet this one time he unavoidably stalled it?
Where are the locking front wheels? Where is the tyre smoke? At what point did the slip angles of the tyres become unsustainable?

Here again, suppose we give Schumey the benefit of the doubt: another moment of madness. Why can't the guy be man enough to put his hand up and admit what he did, even whilst qualifying (no pun intended) his admission with an insistence that he had just reacted stupidly, for which he was now apologising?

With Schumacher, the "injuries" happened when he drove dirty. To the injuries, the insults were added after the fact, when he would innocently protest, "Who, me?"

A fantastically effective racing driver in many ways, but one who acted dishonourably too many times to be included amongst the all-time greats.

Adelaide, I don't think he ever saw hill.
"Technically I may be champion, but after today I don't deserve it." Who would ever say that? the championship is more than one race.

Jerez was very stupid, I think his tyres were so knackered he underestimated how fast villeneuve was closing and was taken by suprise

Monaco, gets stranger every time I see that, but I have to give him the benefit of doubt(someone has to)and there's alot of crap offline there even on a saturday

[loneranger]

stephen300o said:

flemke said:

stephen300o said:

flemke said:

stephen300o said:

"There were many things to admire about MS. His problems were his irresistible tendency to unsporting conduct, and the fact that he tied himself to the Dubious Ones."

You mean the Hamilton chop?
He spoke to Ron, but went to Ferrari instead

Why don't we wait until, in the season's ultimate race, Hamilton tries to guarantee a championship for himself by deliberately crashing into his rival in an attempt to eliminate him?
On second thoughts, why don't we wait until Hamilton does that in two separate years?

After he's done that, twice, Hamilton can deliberately park his car unsafely on the circuit in order to deny his main rival a chance to compete for pole.

If Hamilton were to do those things, he wouldn't be at Michael's lofty level of unsporting conduct, but he'd be making progress.

The villeneuve incident was a moment of hotheadedness and panic, I don't think the other ones were deliberate at all.

Adelaide '94:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5H0w-pEe90

He makes an unforced error and drives his car into a concrete wall.
After his now-crippled car has bounced off the wall, he first swings in front of Hill's rapidly-closing car on the outside, and then, after Hill has already begun to make a normal inside move to the apex, Schumacher abruptly chops down on him.
Sorry, my friend, but when you've just crashed your car into an immovable object and only by happenstance bounced back onto the circuit, you don't assume the racing line and cut off healthy cars that are now much faster than you and about to overtake you.
Even if it had been unintentional, an honourable man would have put up his hand after the race and said, "Technically I may be champion, but after today I don't deserve it."


Jerez '97:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bJzrByirI

Do you really believe that Michael Schumacher, the world's most calculating, thinking-on-his feet driver, the guy who could carry on lengthy, detailed conversations with his pit crew during a race whilst he was opening gaps on the competition, just panicked and allowed an alien force to overpower him, take control of his body, and irresistibly rotate his hands clockwise at the exact instant that Villeneuve was abreast of him?
If this really was such a moment-of-madness, why did it take Schumacher many years before he even admitted that he had driven into Villeneuve and had been in the wrong?


Monaco '06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jcHrHUJdu0

When I saw it as it was happening, like many others I believed that Rascasse must have been an honest mistake. After all, how could anyone - least of all a seven-times champion - deliberately do such an outrageous thing?
Having looked at the footage many times since, it is as plain as can be that he did what he did intentionally.
Look at the steering angles - see how he adds too much lock early, then straightens the wheel to aim towards the Armco, but then doesn't even bother to try turning again to get the car past the barrier.
Think of how many times in his career Schumacher spun his car, and nonetheless managed to keep his engine running (to his credit), yet this one time he unavoidably stalled it?
Where are the locking front wheels? Where is the tyre smoke? At what point did the slip angles of the tyres become unsustainable?

Here again, suppose we give Schumey the benefit of the doubt: another moment of madness. Why can't the guy be man enough to put his hand up and admit what he did, even whilst qualifying (no pun intended) his admission with an insistence that he had just reacted stupidly, for which he was now apologising?

With Schumacher, the "injuries" happened when he drove dirty. To the injuries, the insults were added after the fact, when he would innocently protest, "Who, me?"

A fantastically effective racing driver in many ways, but one who acted dishonourably too many times to be included amongst the all-time greats.

Adelaide, I don't think he ever saw hill.
"Technically I may be champion, but after today I don't deserve it." Who would ever say that? the championship is more than one race.

Jerez was very stupid, I think his tyres were so knackered he underestimated how fast villeneuve was closing and was taken by suprise

Monaco, gets stranger every time I see that, but I have to give him the benefit of doubt(someone has to)and there's alot of crap offline there even on a saturday

Well said.
It is nice to see someone stand up to Flemke's constant anti donkey bile.

He is so bitter and twisted that he is missing out on owning and driving some great Ferraris.

[flemke]

loneranger said:

He is so bitter and twisted that he is missing out on owning and driving some great Ferraris.

And you would know that because:

A.) you are aware of every car that I have owned, now own, have driven or am able to drive when I wish, and also because
B.) you yourself have extensive experience driving great Ferraris, and thus are in a position to testify to what I have been missing?

[flemke]

stephen300o said:

Adelaide, I don't think he ever saw hill.
"Technically I may be champion, but after today I don't deserve it." Who would ever say that? the championship is more than one race.

Who would say it?
A guy who had just caused his own crash into a concrete wall and then, if not deliberately, it could only have been incompetently, drove straight into a competitor, with the very convenient result that he was guaranteed the title.
Check out your motorsports history, my friend. Familiarise yourself with real men such as Collins, Moss, G. Villeneuve and Peterson, to mention but a few. They showed that you didn't need to be incorrigibly, pervasively selfish in order to be a great driver.
That's the pathetic thing about Michael: he would have been even greater with "only" 70 wins and 5 championships in his career, if he had achieved them the right way.

stephen3000o said:

Jerez was very stupid, I think his tyres were so knackered he underestimated how fast villeneuve was closing and was taken by suprise

Tyres were so knackered? You are joking.
You don't think that these guys know when their tyres are going off? How about pit signals? Radio information from Brawn? Do you really think that Ross Brawn would watch Michael's times getting slower and slower, and Villeneuve inexorably closing the gap, without telling him what was going on - about once every ten seconds?
Just look at the video again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bJzrByirI

In the 5th second, Schumacher begins to turn in, as usual.
In the 6th second, he looks in his mirror - as any competent driver would do - sees Villeneuve coming up the inside and takes off a bit of lock because Villeneuve's car has caught up with his. At this moment he is instinctively trying to avoid a collision - as any competent driver would do.
In the 7th second, he adds steering lock, for the second time during the same turn-in phase. Why?

Although the evidence shows the contrary, even if Villeneuve's proximity had caught him off guard (knackered tyres, etc), how do you explain the fact that when he turned into Villeneuve, V's car was fully abreast of his own? Do you really believe that, in addition to his knackered tyres, Michael had knackered peripheral vision as well?

Btw, insofar as you, the loneperson and a couple of others seem to be convinced that I have an uncontrollable, irrational detestation of Michael and Ferrari, it may interest you to know that throughout the '97 season, and until that incident as Jerez, I was actually rooting for MS and Ferrari to win.
My sentiments changed dramatically as I watched live, and then several times on replay, what Schumacher did to Villeneuve. There is no doubt of what he did, and it was disgraceful.

Stephen300o said:

Monaco, gets stranger every time I see that, but I have to give him the benefit of doubt(someone has to)and there's alot of crap offline there even on a saturday

Stephen, my friend, just study Michael's front tyres at and after the apex. They tell the whole story, and they were the things being directed by his hands.



Although I harshly criticise some things about Schumacher and Ferrari, I have often on PH praised other things about them, including directly above:

flemke said:

A fantastically effective racing driver in many ways, but one who acted dishonourably too many times to be included amongst the all-time greats.

Can you help me to understand why some Ferrari adorers seem not to be satisfied unless the whole world falls into line behind them in unqualified, unquestioning worship of the one and true faith?

[Heebeegeetee]

Come off it Flemke, you can't judge what it takes to drive at the sharp end of a GP, never mind understand what it takes to be the most succesful ever, from clips of Youtube.

You describe what happened in Adelaide as though you were in Hills car, yet your only source of genuine info is possibly Autosport, (like mine is). And what journo has ever raced at the moment of winning the F1 world championship?

How is it that Schumacher could drive so competitively, and so entertainingly, for 16 years and you can only cite, time and time again, the bad bits.

I accept what you say about Collins and Moss etc, I love that period too, but these drivers weren't very succesful, and sadly, Moss never clicked on to what it took to turn his fantastic talents into world championships. Moss was better than everybody except Fangio, yet where's the hard proof? Even Hawthorn, tired and shagged out after a hard and painful career, and in an inferior car, beat him. It was ridiculous.

Very few understand what happened in Adelaide, and certainly only hardcore racers would, in my view, not the club/gentlemen variety. I prefer the hardened view. F1 is not and never should be of the 'after you Claude' type. Collins and Moss both had a bit of that in them and it cost them.

I don't fully understand the 'it must be fair' view. Life isn't fair, so why should it be at the top level of sport? Actually, it is pretty fair, those who work hardest and put the most effort in tend to win, so what could be fairer than that?

Every single one of us know in our hearts that Damon Hill was not a better driver than Schumacher, so how on earth could it be fair if he beat Schumacher in the championship? He beat him once, but we do know without any shadow of doubt that it wasn't through his abilities as a racer.

Btw, those who have met Hamilton are saying he tends to be humble, and those who met Schumacher were almost always of the view that he wasn't arrogant.

But the tv viewers know differently, eh?

[stephen300o]

"Tyres were so knackered? You are joking.
You don't think that these guys know when their tyres are going off? How about pit signals? Radio information from Brawn? Do you really think that Ross Brawn would watch Michael's times getting slower and slower, and Villeneuve inexorably closing the gap, without telling him what was going on - about once every ten seconds?
Just look at the video again:"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bJzrByirI

Looking at it again after along while, it does'nt seem so bad, just a playfull tap, these grey's don't arf get there knickers in a twist.

[flemke]

Heebeegeetee said:

Come off it Flemke, you can't judge what it takes to drive at the sharp end of a GP, never mind understand what it takes to be the most succesful ever, from clips of Youtube.

You describe what happened in Adelaide as though you were in Hills car, yet your only source of genuine info is possibly Autosport, (like mine is). And what journo has ever raced at the moment of winning the F1 world championship?

And therefore the only persons whose opinions have any validity are those who have done the precise thing that is under discussion?
I guess that means that the only people who should be allowed to vote in general elections are ex-PMs.
For that matter, let's all leave Pistonheads. Few of us have designed motorcars, written and enforced traffic laws, or raced in Formula One, so on those subjects we could not have intelligent opinions that we should be so bold as to share here.

Heebeegeetee said:

How is it that Schumacher could drive so competitively, and so entertainingly, for 16 years and you can only cite, time and time again, the bad bits.

I only cite the bad bits, such as what I said about Schumacher in the very thread to which you are responding?:

about Schumacher flemke said:

A fantastically effective racing driver in many ways....

Your issue, and Stephen's, isn't that I "only cite the bad bits", which assertion is manifestly untrue.
Instead, it seems to be that I have the nerve to point out that there were some significant bad bits, and that these tainted the very substantial good bits.
Would you prefer that all people simply worship at the altar of St Michael?

Heebeegeetee said:

I accept what you say about Collins and Moss etc, I love that period too, but these drivers weren't very succesful, and sadly, Moss never clicked on to what it took to turn his fantastic talents into world championships. Moss was better than everybody except Fangio, yet where's the hard proof? Even Hawthorn, tired and shagged out after a hard and painful career, and in an inferior car, beat him. It was ridiculous.

We can get into the "Who was the better driver?" question ad infinitum without ever resolving it. As you suggest, we cannot know.

The subject under discussion here is different.
There are substantial video records of what happened at Adelaide.
The opinion that you or I form of that incident may be influenced by our prejudices, or, quite possibly, by our values.
Irrespective of what might motivate our thinking, there is more than enough information available to form a reasonable opinion.

Heeebeegeetee said:

Very few understand what happened in Adelaide, and certainly only hardcore racers would, in my view, not the club/gentlemen variety. I prefer the hardened view. F1 is not and never should be of the 'after you Claude' type. Collins and Moss both had a bit of that in them and it cost them.

It "cost them" in numbers of victories, perhaps. It benefited them in their quality as men, and that is incomparably more important than who won the most stupid motor races.

Heebeegeetee said:

I don't fully understand the 'it must be fair' view. Life isn't fair, so why should it be at the top level of sport? Actually, it is pretty fair, those who work hardest and put the most effort in tend to win, so what could be fairer than that?

We're not talking about "fair" in the sense of everyone's achieving the same outcome.
We're talking about fair in the sense of everyone's playing by the same rules, both the written ones and the unwritten code of fair play. It is only if everyone plays by the same rules that we can even know who is "best". If you win motor races by crashing into your strongest competitor and elminating him, your "victory" is meaningless.

Heebeegeetee said:

Every single one of us know in our hearts that Damon Hill was not a better driver than Schumacher, so how on earth could it be fair if he beat Schumacher in the championship? He beat him once, but we do know without any shadow of doubt that it wasn't through his abilities as a racer.

If you were right about that, would it mean that Schumacher should have been given the title every year simply because he was the "best"?
We all know that Tiger Woods is the world's best golfer. Why don't we just give him the trophy and winner's money every time that he enters a tournament?

Heebeegeetee said:

Btw, those who have met Hamilton are saying he tends to be humble, and those who met Schumacher were almost always of the view that he wasn't arrogant.

But the tv viewers know differently, eh?

Hamilton is classy, and I hope that he stays that way, despite all the bullshit that has been and will be coming his way.
I don't know Schumacher, and don't have an opinion about him as a person.
My German friends tell me that he is a good family man, treated his team (if not his co-driver) extremely well, and is generous to charity.
I won't mention the negative things that they also tell me about him, because that would be interpreted by you as "only citing the bad bits".