I don't think it is this simple.
This new in-car footage clears things up in some areas and muddies up other areas.

From the in-car shot we can see him steering always to the right or to center. From the outside views we can see his car always heading to the right or straight ahead. After bouncing off the curb it never makes a move to the left and neither does MS steer towards the left.

I don't see this as acceptable evidence that his car was damaged and out of control. It at all times appeared to be responding to his input and headed in the appropriate direction.



http://www.fia.com/Regle/Annexe_L/Appendix_L_2001.pdf

Page 5 gives the code of conduct on overtaking.
Was this document relevent in 1994?

30Ft Penguin -- respectfully, I strongly submit that is not the racing line. MS has turned in substantially early for a driver of his precision. Please check previous laps for turn-in and apex points.
Thank You

I would like to state my agreement with 30ft Penguin in his post of 06-28-2001 08:08 (no. 43 in this thread I think) with one crucial difference . I agree totaly with his analysis of MS having the right to fight fully with DH (thus disregarding the 'crippled car' debate) and with the fact that MS only turned in on the racing line. Where I disagree is that I think Hill was sufficiently alongside to have a claim to the inside line and that, therefore, in turning in on the racing line MS made a mistake.

Gareth

Several issues have been mentioned that I think require rebuttal:

1. MS' car was damaged and he was trying to control it.
This is pure speculation and we really do not have any evidence to support such a statement. If, however, that was the case, instead of trying to get up to racing speed and taking the corner, MS should have slowed down and gotten out of the way as best he could.
If, again, this was the case, MS is guilty of reckless driving as speeding up in a car that is uncontrolable can hardly be seen as anything else.

2. The accident is either a racing incident or DH' fault because he tried to take up the same space as MS.
The only attempt at evidence of this are the pictures shown with (what 30ft Penguin understands to be) the racing line marked for our viewing convenience. What the MS fans do not seem to realize is that passing requires the passing car to be off the racing line and, (surprisingly, for MS fans) to the inside. So of course DH was on the inside and off the racing line. That's the way you pass, lads.
Once again, MS drives recklessly.

3. DH is to blame because you should avoid a damaged car at all cost ...
Why even answer this? I mean, if that is the case a damaged car weaving all over the track for the duration would be the best way to win a race. Sorry, a damaged car should avoid other cars (if, indeed MS' car was badly damaged).
MS, the reckless WDC.

4. MS needed time to assess the damage of his car.
And, I suppose, we are to believe that DH had the obligation to give him this time? I'm sorry Bex37, if a driver is not sure of whether his car is damaged or not, he should get out of the way of cars legitimately racing, not require that they put their race on hold while the facts are assessed. What is true is that if a car's suspension is damaged enough to make control of it difficult, then the driver will immediately notice and (once more) he should get out of the way.
MS = reckless



What (if what you say is true) is MS' right to try and keep racing, if he was "driving a car that is extremely difficult to keep in a straight line"? If what you say is true, then MS was not only reckless, he was acting with down right criminal intent (which I do not believe).



I'm stumped: was MS' car controlable or uncontrolable? If MS' car WAS controllable, then he had "safely rejoined the track", so DH was not (your words) under any obligation to give him wide berth.
If MS' car was NOT controllable then he had not "safely rejoined the track" and WAS under the obligation to avoid cars that were in fact racing.

Any way you look at it, and given the evidence at our disposal, MS drove recklessly at that corner is is clearly to blame.

As a proof of previous conduct and character on the part of M Schumacher, I wish to present the following exerpt from an analysis of the Macau 1990 F3 race published by AtlasF1 (http://www.atlasf1.com/98/ger/schum.html)

No evidence? Just watch the video... if he isn't looking in his mirror what is he doing? And just because he was back on "full acceleration" it doesn't follow that the racing line is his to take - imagine if a car spins and stops on a straight and the driver nails the throttle and immediately pulls onto the racing line... is that okay because he is on full acceration? Of course not.

As to having the front wing beside the rear wing - who ever made that the determining factor in what is considered a "block"? I hear all the time that JV's move on MS at Suzuka in 1997 was a nasty block, but MS was never beside him on the side that JV tired to block him - JV pulled across the track to re-join the racing line at a lower speed than MS in an almost identical move to MS's in 1994, he pulls across the track to block, MS is blocked by that and pulled ut on the right ti pass - the only real difference here is that JV didn't move back across in front of MS as MS did to DH at Adelaide.. So, did JV not block? After all, he was just going for the racing line under full acceleration... you can't have it both ways... the critical thing to note is the speed differential in the cars, and again, the speed differential is clear, despite yours and others protestations, by the amount of space Hill makes up in a single corner and the fact that he is able to move from fully behind MS to almost fully beside in less than 50 odd metres....

Please respond as to how I am "bending and breaking" facts.

As to "surviving the next corner - for a driver who many of you consider to be one of the best ever, he did a pretty piss poor job of "surviving it"...

No offence, but are you serious? That's not bobbing, that's moving his head to check where Damon is.

This is Schumacher looking straight forward:


This is Schumacher looking for Damon Hill when he steers into the corner. Notice his visor that reflects the sunlight? Can you seriously say that's "bobbing" ?


Keep this in mind and watch the video again.

Your suggestion is that MS gave him fair warning that he was going to take the corner, hell or high water - that to me says that you can blame the accident squarely on MS - if not, than any driver can prevent a pass by a couple of wee swerves... "hey! I warned him I was coming over!" Again, your suggestion is that MS initiated the accident and DH failed to avoid it... suggestive of the blame being MS's.

So - you admit that he had an ill handling car on the racing line but despite this you suggest that Hill wasn't in aposition to pass and wasn't faster? DH's car was NOT ill handling.... This car (MS's) was just out of the dirt with dusty tires, had just smacked the wall and had JUST rejoined the track. If you cannot concede that this would have made for a notable speed difference between the 2 cars we may as well stop this discussion now.

Second, it matters not whether he knew if DH was there or not - a block is a block is a block. In Canada in 1998, MS had HHF off the track and was penalised despite the fact that he claimed he was unaware of his presence....

MS is a top flight top ranked GP driver. I think that we can assume that, not only was he controlling the car, but he would have been even more acutely aware than usual of his and his competitors placement on the track.

Again, refer to the JV block on MS in Suzuka - that is almost exactly the same as block one on DH the only real difference is that the speed differential in Japan would have been greater because of the speed of that particular corner, and JV's car would have been coming up to racing speed more quickly as it was indamaged and had not left the track.

Sorry if my last couple of posts were a bit confusing - I had to write them quickly... at this point, I'd just like to recap why it is I believe that one can say that MS blocked twice and why I believe the responsibuility for contact was his in response to some of the criticism I have had for saying exactly that.

1) It has been postulated that because MS returned to occupy the racing line he is blameless; In Canada in 1998, he was assessed a 10 second penalty for leaving the pits under "full acceleration", and re-joining the racing line... why was he penalised? Because he failed to give way for a faster approaching car and impeded it's progress - in short he blocked. The major difference between this move and the one at Adelaide is that HHF had his car nearly alongside MS when he lost control, and that HHF ended up off the track. But it should be noted, that when the cars aligned, their speed differential was minimal and this is borne out by simply watching the replay - despite this, MS was found to be responsible and penalised. What does this tell us? What most of us know - a car re-entering the track MUST give way to faster cars even if it means surrendering the racing line.

2) It has been postulated that there was no speed differential between DH and MS. As I pointed out in the last paragraph, this may be unimportant in regards to my thesis, but I will address it regardless. A Formula One car carries speed from corner to corner - get one corner wrong and you are likely to suffer at the next corner. MS was certainly NOT carrying all his speed from the previous corner, Damon Hill was. A Grand prix car has tires that, when running are incredibly sticky to facilitate adhesion to the track. Unfortunately, the effect of the same tires when a car goes off course is disasterous, as the tires pick up a coating of whatever they drive over - in this case sand dirt and dust - MS's car would have been less effective in its acceleration due to the resultant deficit in grip. Again, DH's car would not be suffering from a similar problem. Lastly, MS had just tagged the wall, and would , as some have pointed out, been unsure of the true state of his car - given this, it is unlikely that, even if her were able to match the speed of DHs Williams in spite of the grip problem and the fact that he carried no speed from the previous corner, he would be unlikely to push his car quite as hard as DH until he was aware of the true nature of his cars condition. This last is somewhat mitigated by the low speed nature of the corner.

3) It has been speculated that DH was to blame for trying to pass at that point. It seems that the problem is that, by passing, DH put himself at the mercy of MS. What I fail to understand about this argument is that, ANY TIME a racer passes another, he puts at least part of the fate of the attempt in the hands of the other driver. Given that DH was unaware that MS's car might be seriously damaged, what better invitation was DH going to get? And if he did get another invitation later in the race to pass, what would prevent MS from doing EXACTLY the same thing?

4) It has been argued that DH drove into MS (similar arguments exist about Jerez 1997) In his attempt to pass MS on the inside, DH left the racing line and dived inside - an accepted gambit. DH actually gets the front of his front wheels almost level with the back of MS's front wheels. At this point, MS is inexorably closing the door, and when it becomes clear to Hill that MS has no intention of leaving racing room, DH brakes, dropping the front wheels of his car to the level of the sidepod of the Benetton, and as he continues tobrake, contact occurs and MS is launched by running his left rear over DH's front right. At no point in this engagement did either driver appear to be out of control of their cars. Hill is the only one who tried any avoiding action (braking) at all. Damon Hill made a legitimate passing move and the fact that he had racing room is borne out by the fact that if you look at the angle of the corner, DH was clear on his right hand side with space to the wall an d the rumble strip, and thus he had room to pass. The only reason that he was unable to pass was that, the angle that MS came into the corner wouldn't allow 2 cars to pass through. As everyone knows, a pass requires both parties to participate. DH did his part, MS refused to act in accordance with the basic tenets of the sport and make room where it was his responsibility to do so - or put another way, Damons line through the corner would have worked perfectly if MS had allowed him racing room, MS's trajectory through the corner would only have worked if DH were simply not there.

To sum up, in similar fashion to Canada 1998, MS impeded a faster car by rejoining the racing line without regard to the cars behind which were carrying more speed due to his off. Damon Hill, coming around the corner and seeing MS re-joining from the right hand side, dived to the outside (the left) to attempt a pass using the fact that MS was offline as an advantage. By pulling across the breadth of the track at his lower speed, MS prevented or impeded DH from making a pass around the outside - thus he had legitimitly blocked him. When Damon tried on the inside, MS blocked him again to the extent of hitting his car.

Finally - regardless of what led up to it, look at the pass. Damon Hill's line, as he approaches the corner has him lined up on a similar trajectory to the white line that leads to the inside edge of the rumble stripping - in short his car was aimed at the apex and remained so up until his wheels get to the farthest forward position that they will achieve vis a vis MS's car. At this point, both cars will make it through the corner, though DH may have to put a wheel on the rumble strip. The only reason that both cars don't make it through is because MS dives to the inside in an attempt to take his car cleanly through the racing line but as another car already had the inside line to the apex beside him, he had no business moving over.

I fail to see how anyone can ascribe any blame to Hill when MS simply turned into him.

That was four years later after, and therefore not a precedent.

I've watched it again several times, and here are my observations. That looking to the left that A3 captured in a picture happend simultaneously with MS turning right. And you'll see him turning his head even farther to the left, just the moment before the impact. That is IMO when he realized that DH was on his inside.

Exactly, the foul was commited by MS.

Despite there being no foul by DH, I still think he had every reason to believe there was no way through at that particular point, as I tried to explain earlier.

Let me ask this. Do you think DH believed he had any chance of making the pass?

He had the advantage of being able to learn from the mistakes of Senna & Prost before him, but instead appeared to be shocked to find himself in a situation he was unprepared for and reacted badly.

Was DH asked about such a situation before the race? about what his reactions would be if such an event happened? At the time I didn't pay any attention to the pre-race build-up so I would be interested to know if it was anything like the Jerez 97 build-up.

Comparing it to Jerez 97 I remember there was much hype that there would be yet another collision and the FIA warned they would DQ anyone doing this. JV then had every reason to believe that he would be allowed to make a clean pass. At the very least he had reason to believe that even if MS pulled such a stunt it would be set right again after the race.

You later mention an incident in Canada with HHF. I don't believe that these two incidents can be compared, because there should have been a marshal at the end of the pit-lane warning drivers of traffic coming down the main straight. He was missing, so it would have been fair for MS to assume the track behind him was clear.

You mean that Michael looks to his right, not his left.

The first time he looks to his right, Hill fills up his mirror, it's impossible for Michael to not see him, but still he keeps turning in. This becomes obvious when you look at the TV feed.

I have little to add to Bruce's eloquent argument. I just want to point out the fact that so far, the evidence presented overwhelmingly shows that we are not dealing with a classical racing accident where two cars with similar speeds are racing for the same piece of track, but rather a slow, possibly crippled car shutting the door on an overtaking car at racing speed.

There are NO evidence of Schumacher trying to avoid the crash - even when the cars are inches apart (look at MS's steering wheel with the onboard) - while Hill has to hit the brakes *twice* (look at the Goodyear logo on Hill's tyres in A3's video frame-by-frame) first to avoid a slow Schumacher trying to cross the track after his off, and second with a lock to try to avoid collision at the corner. Note that Hill's front tyres are at least ahead of the Benetton's sidepod and probably close to the level of Ms's front wheels since Hill's wheel lock occurs before contact with the Benetton's sidepod. Hill even tries to avoid the accident by runing in the grass. In other words, Hill did everything in his power to avoid contact; Schumacher - at best - did nothing, not even a countersteer (while according to his supporters he was sawing at the wheel wildly to control his ill-handling car a few seconds before! the unavoidable conclusion is that he had NO intention whatsoever of making it past the corner without hitting Hill.

First of all, turning the head to the right doesn't mean he was looking for Damon. Drivers tend to turn their head to withstand g forces. Look at the MS on-board camera while he was struggling with the previous corner. Is his head visible? No, because it's turned to the left. Is his head turned to the left because he's looking at Damon? I doubt it.

I was looking at Canada '98 incident and I cannot understand how this incidents can be similar. Firstly, Schumacher rejoined the circuit with HHF alongside him and actually pushed him (not blocked) onto the grass. In Oz case, he rejoined the circuit when Hill was still behind him. Secondly, this is a trial about the accident, not about the alleged blocking.

I also don't understand comparisons between our case and Argentina '98. Coulthard made a mistake and he ran wide off the racing line. Schumacher saw a gap and proceeded on the racing line. But Coulthard wanted that line, so they hit.

I was studying Hill's on-board camera. I noticed that he started braking before Schumacher closed in on him. Of course, there was a corner, he should brake, but the fact that the front wheels locked suggests the intensity of his braking (I think this fact was recognized by the other party, but the fact that the wheels locked before Schumacher closed in was overlooked).

Three options:
1. He realized he made an overambitious move on the inside and was too fast,
2. He realized that Schumacher might not have seen him,
3. He realized that Schumacher might hit him intentionally,
4. All the combinations of the above.

Option 1 suggests it was a racing incident, but options 2 and 3 don't suggest anything because they describe Hill's own thoughts, not Schumacher's.

By GP standards, g-forces would be minimal to non-existant in those corners and the short "straight - it isn't exactly Eau Rouge....

JBDrake.. I fail to understand what you think DH should have done differently. He may have been aware that any pass on MS would be dicey, but if he wanted to win the WDC, he HAD to pass. He was as he has stated, unaware that the Benetton had touched the wall and therefore unaware of potential damage. Given this, he HAD to try a pass. MS had just made a great thumping mistake. He would be unlikely to be so generous to repeat it every third lap... so DH had to strike while the proverbial iron was hot - had he not, and had MS's car not been damaged, we would be hearing about how DH's timidity and his failure to take advantage of MS's mistake had cost him the WDC to this day....

That's where you're wrong, I'm afraid. Drivers usually move their heads to the right to take a right corner, that's something different than turning their heads to look in the mirror.

So you are assuming that MS made an assumption. That is really strong evidence.

Now allow me an assumption in return: MS knew Hill was seconds behind; MS glanced the wall and rejoined the circuit quite quickly; MS floored it as soon as he was on the circuit; MS was hoping that his car was okay. MS thought that Hill would not catch him if he could get up to race speed before the braking area for the right hander.

Indeed, Hill did only just catch up to the back of MS's car and, perhaps, if Hill was totally unimpeded (and with the benefit of the video that was not available to MS), Hill may have been one or two car lengths further forward than he managed to gain with MS in the way. This distance of two car lengths amounts to a time span of about 0.2 second at 120km/hr. So the speed difference that Hill MAY have had (if MS did not impede Hill at all) would have amounted to 0.2 second of gained time.

Consequently, if you convert your implication into a quantity as I have done above, you are effectively saying that MS should have been able to judge Hill's position through that section of the track to an accuracy of much better than 0.2 second; say 0.1 second, which equates to 3 metres of travel at 120km/hr.

To be able to judge the position of the trailing car to within 0.1s is clearly a rediculous expectation to place on a driver. Particularly when you consider that MS wouldn't have known the exact time gap back to Hill prior to his glance with the wall (pit boards show the last lap, not the lap just completed) Further, MS had plenty of other things to concentrate upon the impossible task of judging Hill's position on the track within 0.1 second.

He was looking to the left to see if there was a car on the racing line in an attempt to avoid hitting anyone. You see, as I said before, he really would not have had any idea whether Hill was going to pass him, be next to him or be a car length behind him by the braking area for the next corner. He looked to his left, nobody was there. If he did happen to glance in the mirror and Hill happened to be in the right spot for MS's mirror to pick him up, he would have seen that Hill was one or two car lengths behind him. There is absolutely no way that he could judge a speed difference in the mirror. Again, assuming that MS saw DH on the outside in the mirror, there were only five or six car lengths until the braking area; MS could reasonably assume that he had the inside line for the next corner.

I would just like to add that a driver does not need to turn his head to look in his mirrors. In fact, I will bet that whilst you drive your car on the road, you glance in the mirrors without turning your head at times. You will find that turning the head indicates that the driver is trying to see out of the side of the car as to whether something is next to him. This is required because the full face helmet restricts the view if the head is not turned.

This argument is mute. By this time it is clear that the car is not handling the way it should. The car is oversteering and hitting the apex early is a symptom of oversteer at turn in.

Besides, I don't think he does hit the apex early at all. He did a pretty good job of keeping his car under control.

Anyone can gain a car length if you fail to push the brake pedal at the right time. Damon had the best seat in the house to see that MS's car was doing strange things and that MS was already turning into the right hander (as indicated by the two wobbles). The third turn to the right is concurrent with Hill's lunge down the inside. When MS made this third right turn, Hill was not beside him. Its only when MS put his brakes on to go around the corner that Hill ducked out and made the half a car length. MS did not have time to plan to hit DH, he was just trying to control a wildly oversteering car through the corner. Hill's decision to dive down the inside whilst MS was clearly having these problems was silly. Did Hill really expect MS to be looking in his mirrors whilst his car was behaving like this. One thing is for sure, the only way that MS would have seen Hill's pass would have been to look in the mirror at the exact instant that Hill ducked out from behind. Any later was too late. A big risk by Hill.

Go and read my first post. If you can't tell that MS's car is displaying wicked turn-in oversteer/stability, you have a big deficiency in your ability to make a balanced judgement in this case.

You don't seem to realise that some places on the track are poor passing places and that the deranged handling of the car in front is a big factor to consider for your own wellbeing. To put it in laymans terms; when driving on the road do you leave a learner a bit more space? If you do, why? Surely if the learner driver hits you it is his fault anyway! Of course, you do not want to get involved in an accident, just like Damon should have been thinking. It was clear that MS was learning the revised handling of his car by the unruly swerves as he tryed to turn in, so he could be considered a learner too.

MS did not know the extent of the damage until he made his first right-turn steering input. Obviously he was not going to stop racing prior to that as there was no evidence of any significant problem. By this time, MS was committed to the corner and he did not know where DH was on the track, nor could he look whilst trying to control his car.

Absolutely wrong. I have driven a chassis before that handled great on the straight and around a left hander, but when I tried to take a right hander, it was diabolical. If the suspension is bent in particular ways, it can have very strange affects. Certainly most suspension/chassis damage shows itself pretty soon. It did in this case; a short burst in a straight line was okay, but a very slight turn to the right was a problem. I contend that MS was legitimately racing.



It wasn't, it was difficult to make a slight right turn. If I said it was difficult to keep it in a straight line somewhere I have made a mistake. (Yes, even MS fans can make a mistake!)

It was controllable up until the point in time approximately 2 seconds prior to Hill lunging up the inside which corresponds to MS's first right-turn steering input on the circuit.

He didn't drive recklessly and is not completely to blame. Don't get me wrong in all of this; I don't think that it was all Hill's fault. I just don't think that MS went out of his way to hit Hill. It was Hill's call whether to pass or not and, in hindsight, he would have won the world championship had he not made that pass. You can talk about Hill's right to pass until you are blue in the face, but a decision to wait until the next straight would have won him the DWC. There was evidence of a problem for Hill to see.

Looking out of the side of the car. You don't need to turn your head to see the mirror.

I quantified that in a previous post. He would have not hope of estimating Hill's position on the track. As it turns out there were perhaps two car lengths in it; a time span of 0.2 seconds. MS would not know how far Hill was behind him within this type of accuracy, never mind guessing within this accuracy to determine Hill's position on the track.

You said that Hill's front right wheel was to the left of MS's left rear wheel in your earlier post. This is clearly wrong when you look at the video. I didn't say that the above was some sort of determining factor; I merely demonstrated that there was no malice in moving to the left side of the track since Hill was not next to MS.

I didn't say that and it has no relevance to this case.

MS does not know where Hill is and has no way of estimating any speed differential from where he sits. He knew that he could reenter the track safely since Hill was a significant distance behind. But just how far that distance was indeteminable. If we were to follow your ruling on the matter, anyone that is behind you that is going faster than you would have the right of way; that would make for an interesting race start - everyone looking in their rear vision mirrors

The thing about Hills right front wheel mentioned above.

And who would have done better.

I think he is just keeping his eye on the apex of the corner. Isn't that what most drivers do????

I can concede that Hill should have been much faster, but he drives from the left side of the circuit to the right side of the circuit, crossing behind MS's rear wing. By the time he crosses behind MS's rear wing, he was doing the same speed as MS. Of course, subsequent to that, he late brakes MS with a lunge down the inside and this late braking is the only reason he has superior car speed at that point in time.

Of course, the swerve from the left side of the circuit to the right side gave MS absolutely no hope of knowing where Hill was on the track. And he was really relying on MS seeing his move down the inside to prevent an accident. Of course, only 2 seconds earlier, MS has realised that his car is handling strangely so he would not be looking in his mirrors in any case. Game over.

Yeh, and this one was not penalised because it was a racing incident, just as I claimed.

The Canada incident is a red-herring. Hill did avoid MS's re-entry to the circuit in this case, which is proven by the fact that Hill did not hit the back of MS and Hill was not forced to leave the circuit. Hill crossed the back of MS's car and during this time, the cars were driving at very similar speeds. Therefore, MS's re-entry to the circuit is not an issue here.

You could say the same about MS's wheels. He was only pointing at the apex.

MS had not seen Hill due to Hill's swerve across the track and lunge down the inside. MS was just taking his own line through the corner, albeit a slightly strange one due to the strange handling of the car.

You don't look in your !@#%!@#% mirror when you are turning into the apex of a corner. Have you ever tried to do that???????????? Go and try it now in your road car and see how you go. Don't forget to take your spare tyre 'cos you're going to do plenty of gutter hopping. To even suggest a driver is looking in his mirror whilst aiming for an apex is a severe display of naivity to what these drivers are doing. If you have trouble doing it in your road car with any accuracy, imagine what consequences it will have in F1 where you cannot afford to be off line by more than 10cm or you could be in the wall. Don't forget these guys do not have the nice smooth riding suspension that your road car has.

Because he had no idea that Hill was lunging down the inside. If you look at MS's incar footage you get a good idea of what MS would have been able to see. THACK! A wheel fed into your sidepod and the game is over. Don't forget, MS's helmet is full face and you cannot see beside you. His only hope was to spot movement in his mirror but of course, he will not be looking in the mirror whilst turning to the apex.


Hill was nowhere to be seen so why would he be thinking of him? Although, if you look at MS's in car you will see that he does notice Hill at precisely the point in time when the wheel hits his sidepod. He probably just got a glimpse of something moving in his peripheral vision by that stage and turned at the same time as the wheel hit him.

Quote by Bex37


I think that is a very important issue to discuss. I mentioned it allready when I was refering to the fact that Hill might have made an overambitious move. Unfortunatelly this is another issue where you end up speculating without telemetry data.

Quote by Bex37


That's right. It just shows that everything Schumacher does is wrong. Imagine if he hadn't looked to the left. He would most certainly be accused of reckless driving because he didn't look if he can safely rejoin the track

A3 wrote

The fact that he saw him is pretty probable. The fact that he knew exactly where Hill is at any given time is not so probable as Bex37 suggested. Given the small mirrors, they're probably not flat (to cover wider arc), but that leads to distorted picture (object are closer than they seem in the mirror).

Oversteer is what caused him to leave the track & hit the wall in the first place. Have a look at his reactions when this happens and compare them to what he does later when you suggest he is also suffering from oversteer.

With a badly oversteering car he would not be making such large turns to the right like that, otherwise he would have simply spun on the straight and ended up nowhere near the apex (& nowhere near DH).

It's possible that he had anything from bent steering to a broken suspension, but none of this could be seen from his steering input or the behaviour of the car.
The right side of the car is the unloaded side in a right hand turn, so this particular corner would be the least likely for him to experience problems with if there was any damage.

--

Bruce, I didn't know that DH didn't see MS make contact with the wall, but this doesn't really change my belief that it was a mistake to attempt a pass.

It is unfortunate, but the circumstances just didn't allow for it. Both MS & the FIA saw to that.

However I can see now how pointless my case is beginning to sound.
I still believe there are many reasons why he should have backed off, but saying he should share blame in the accident because he put himself in range of somebody who wanted to crash into him is a bit of a stretch.

So I will concede the point that DH should not share blame for the accident.

Wildly oversteering? Hardly. Wild oversteer is what happened to Eddie Irvine in qualifying in France to day. But lets assume you are right, and that MS is trying to control a "wildly oversteering" car through a very slow corner - his car previous to the hit was NOT wildly oversteering - do you not think that this should then have sent a message to MS that something on his car was not right following his accident? What was he doing closing in on the apex and shutting the door on Hill for if his car was exhibiting signs of obvious derangement? If his car was suddenly as bad as you say, MS must have known that the writing was on the wall, and given that, why did he immpede Hill? Should he not have just pulled off the racing line and allowed DH through so that he might check the car? Is the tight apex the only way through the corner that he had to dive in on Hill? In fact, if MS's car was showing such sudden signs of massive change in handling, his decision to close the door on Hill despite his knowledge that his car had just developed massive handling changes suggestive of damage can have only one explanation - and that is that he made the concious decision to make sure that Hill's car began to display similar symptoms to improve MS's chances in the WDC....

If his car was suddenly so dicey, he should have been pulling off line to assess the damage, rather than take that moment to initiate a wheel to wheel (or rather sidepod to wheel) battle.

All of this assumes that you are right in your statement that his car was "wildly oversteering, of course".

http://ftg.vltmedia.se/zon/bil/filmer/f1/1994/schuhill.mpg [/B][/QUOTE] (posted earlier by A3)

From 24-27 seconds it is clear that Micheal’s right rear (His right rear) is out of alignment by a very large degree. (If you have the tape I suggest you watch it. It’s twice as easy to spot on TV)



Even in this picture it’s clear that the toe and camber on his right rear wheel is wrong. With the amount of visual damage to his rear wheel/suspension, and the amount of input on the steering visible between 10-14 seconds, there is no question that his car was heavily damaged. There is no way he would have been able to finish the race with that damage (He probably wouldn’t have even made it back to the pits) never mind staying ahead of Hill the whole way. Any driver of Micheal’s experience would know that his race was finish. So it’s either incompetence by keeping a very damaged car on track that had no chance of finishing the race that resulted in an accident, or a deliberate attempt to have Hill off. Either way Micheal is guilty.

[Following on from what I said here…

Incompetence by keeping a very damaged car on track that had no chance of finishing the race that resulted in an accident…

I would like to remind the court that in the Spa 98 trial DC was found guilty not for the actual accident itself were his and Micheal’s car came in contact together, but because he caused the events that lead to the actual accident. I therefor request that the same line of reasoning be used in this case, that is that Micheal’s mistake that damaged his car initiated the events that lead to Hill and himself coming together]

Bodzolka said; ....."Yelnats, could you name the source of the Schumacher's quote (about the damaged steering) and quote it verbatim. Thanks."

Sorry Bodzolka, The best I can do is quote from "The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Formula One" page 67... "Just before mid-distance Schumacher ran wide and grazed a wall. Hill dived for a gap at the next corner and the German knowing his car was damaged, drove into Hill." writen by Editor of AutoSport, Bruce Jones.

This second-hand opinion does little to resolve this issue but is illlustrative of well informed opinion of the era.

Oh really? I've seen enough on-board footage of drivers looking in their mirrors thanks to Bernie TV. I asure you they DO have to turn their head. Take a look at the following picture, you'll understand why they have to turn their head.

http://dbs.galeforcef1.com/photo/2517b.jpg



Did you even look at the video????? The moment he starts to turn in he looks in his mirror. Why do I say that? Because he turns his head back to see the apex of the corner and turns his head to the right again the moment Hill hits him. That's 2 movements to the right in one corner.

Above all, I think he's not concentrating on the apex, he's concentrating on Hill. Notice how he immediately follows Hill's car when his car is in the barriers?

I have a couple of points to make.

Firstly, it is absurd to say that Schumacher should have pulled off the racing line,as soon as he came back onto the track. After hitting the wall, he only drove for 50m (perhaps even less) on the track before the collision occured. It is impossible for any racing driver to convince himself of his vehicle's disablities in just 3 or 4 seconds - especially, in a situation where his direct rival is trying to overtake him.

Secondly, IMHO, Hill would have collided with Schumacher even if Schumacher gave him more room. Hill braked very late, and was taking a very tight entry angle into the corner, and I doubt if he could have carried on on the racing line at the exit of the hairpin since he braked incrdibly late, but also locked his brakes before the impact.

Furthermore, Hill has a history of making very silly attemted passes, which end up in race-ending collisions. For eg. Silverstone and Monza '95, Nurburgring '96 (attempted pass on Diniz), Imola '97(attempted pass on Nakano) and several others.

Also, MS looking to the right doesn't necessarily mean he is looking in his mirrors. He could have been looking at the corner ahead or even checking his right front wheel.

DH was going much slower than MS at the point of impact. Look at the outside view of the video, DH is going so slow that the impact does not even cause any reaction from the Benetton. The fact that MS ran over DH's left-front tyre and jumps into the air creates the illusion that he was knocked out of the way by a much faster car. It did not happen.
DH locked his brakes only briefly, but he was already pointed towards the apex and had no more steering left to do for the entry to the corner. He regained control moments later anyway.

A3, this is a better image to demonstrate the point your trying to prove.

http://www.benettonf1.com/images/historic_...am/schumi10.jpg

followed by -



Why would it be so difficult for MS to look in his mirrors if he doesn't need even to move his head? If his car is handling as badly as you seem to think, then should he not have been concentrating on what was behind him? After all, there are cars behind fast approaching at race speed - in front of him is a track that is absolutely predictable with loads of space for him to swing away... and you have yet to explain why it is with such a desperately handling car, with the knowledge that he is being approached by cars running at racing speed, that he drove his car right through the racing line... would'nt it occur to him that a slow, ill handling car might be a slight danger on the racing line? You infer that he was trying to avoid an accident by desperately trying to control his car, but you fail to explain how placing your car directly in the path of another faster car on the racing line is self presevation... Today in the French Grand Prix, when JV lost his engine, his first reaction was to pull of the racing line - drivers do it all the time to allow the cars behind a clear path - Why was MS's reaction the exact opposite?



Yes and you could say it about MS in Jerez in 1997 too. It doesn't make it right. DH had the inside line, and MS was on the outside with a damaged car.



Today, in the French Grand Prix, Eddie Irvine lunged late down the inside of Olivier Panis to make a pass at the tight final turn at Magny Cours. Olivier Panis was paying sufficient attention to his rear view mirrors that he allowed EI the space and the pass was executed flawlessly on both sides. It amazes me to contemplate the fact that you seem to think that a driver of MS's calibre, a driver whom many MS fans claim is one of the best drivers ever to set foot into an F1 car, is incapable of acting in the same manner as OP did today by the fact that it was "too difficult" and that he "didn't know where Hill was".

Finally watch the film again. MS is driving into the corner. DH dives down the inside. Where is MS's concentration going to be? the inside of the corner, right? In fact, you earlier argued that all his attention would be in front, where the car was going and not in the mirrors... when Hill finally realises that MS is on a collision course with him and nails the brakes, the front of DH's wheels are level with the back of MS's front wheels. Anyone with even moderate peripheral vision would have to be aware of the movement emanating from the right hand side, the very direction in which MS would tend to be looking as the corner was a right hander - strangely, despite this, he never once, for all his split second reflexes, attempts to turn the car away from this threat. In fact, he appears to never touch the brakes, and he certainly does not do what an F1 drivers normal impulse should have been and that is to turn the car away and avoid the accident. He turned the car into the corner and left it there.

Indian Chief - it doesn't matter if Hill "would have hit MS anyway" - MS hit Hill. I've heard the same argument about Jerez, and if it is true, then MS should just have backed out of it, let Hill by and passed him on the inside while DH floundered over to the other side of the track. Your opinion that DH braked to late and would not have made the corner is pure speculation. There is no clear indication of where he began to brake, excepting the point where he locks up the tire in an attempt to avoid the rapidly closing MS.

Hills history of "making silly passing attempts" doesn't mean a thing to this case - keep in mind that most of the attempts you are thinking of occured the next year - in 1995.

Finally - again - look at the tape - if MS is looking at hisright front wheel, how is it that he is completely unaware of where Hill is? If he can see his own front wheel, he must be able to see Hills... and yet, he takes NO avoiding action.... why?

Since Mr Schumacher's advocates keep on insisting that Mr Schumacher never saw Mr Hill's car before the incident, and since we seem to be stuck in this circular argument, I would like to ask the court to make a ruling at this point that the fact that Mr Schumacher saw or didn't see Mr Hill's car is irrelevant to his responsability in the accident: if he didn't see him, the accident is due to Mr Schumacher's gross negligence; if he saw him, Mr Schumacher most likely deliberately caused the accident voluntarily by - at best - not trying the slightest avoidance move.

In reply to Vroom Vroom,

By giving the two alternatives you mention, you are effectively asking the court to rule on the outcome of the case with immediate effect. Clearly the issue of responsibility and visibility is an important factor in the case and will be fully considered in the judges deliberations. There is no necessity or benefit in preventing discussion of this point at this stage. Your request is denied.

Shaun

Due to a large pile of work accumulating on my desk, I will be unable to participate further in this case. I would, however, like to make some final arguments before I leave it to the rest of you...

As I have stated earlier, I think that MS effectively blocked Hill twice in succession. The arguments for this have already been gone over and I won't elaborate further.

Micheal Schumacher tagged the wall and rejoined the track. MS at this point is a formula One driver with a full 3 and a half years, or some 50+ races under his belt, so he is unquestionably aware that by tagging the wall he may have damaged the car and scuppered his chance at his first WDC. The defence has argued that MS would not know where Hill was, but I contend that MS would have had a very shrewd idea of exactly where Hill would be given that teams communicate this sort of information to their drivers on a lap by lap basis, especially when a WDC is being decided and your main rival is immediately behind. Schumacher will also be aware that if DH passes him successfully, then it is very likely that MS will not win the WDC.

We cannot hope to form an idea of MS's intent at that moment, but we can be assured that MS was aware of what was at stake.

Next, MS pulls across the breadth of the track, trying to regain the racing line despite the condition of his tires and the possibility of damage to his car. DH, seeing his opportunity, tries a legitimate passing maneuver on the inside, and the video coverage clearly shows that MS simply turns into him... DH tries to avoid the accident, but MS does not - in fact he appears completely oblivious to Hill's existence. In short, MS takes no avoiding action whatsoever.

In all the long arguments about the pass, the defence has failed to show any real proof that Damon's pass was overtly optimistic, dangerous, unsporting, uncontrolled or impossible to pull off. In fact, to my amazement, some people'response has been that DH should have expected MS to shunt him... is this what GP has come to? - better not try to pass, Damon - a WDC is at stake... what this statement suggests is that Damon is partly at fault because he didn't anticipate MS's attempt to remove him from the race... or in other words, he was damned if he passed and damned if he didn't... DH tried a legitimate passing attempt and tried to avoid contact by braking hard when it was clear that MS was going to hit him.

Given all of this, I believe that we can eliminate the suggestion that the accident was caused by DH.

MS's car, damaged or not, was clearly able to steer, as evidenced by his cut across the track and back into the apex. As mentioned, DH tried to avoid contact, knowing that contact would likely cost him the WDC. MS on the other hand, and I stress this - appears to take NO avoiding action whatsoever. The crash was avoidable - all that MS had to do was flick the steering left and drift wide. He did not. The defence has argued that MS did not know where Hill's car was, but even if he couldn't see it (and a quick look at the film will show you that he the car was clearly within his range of vision at first in the mirrors and then at his side) he would have been aware of the small gap that he had on Hill that lap, the fact that he would have lost all of that gap in the off course excurions, and the fact that Hill, in a faster car, would almost certainly try a pass in the traditional manner, by taking the inside line through the apex.

In spite of all this, his ability to steer the car, his ability to see the car beside him, and his freedom to avoid same by the simple expedient of ceasing to turn towards him, MS pinches DH's car and eliminated both cars from the race, making MS a rather sheepish 1994 WDC.

Given the above - that DH tried to avoid the accident and MS apparently made no attempt to avoid it, either by mistake or malice - this cannot be called a "racing accident" - a description for an accident in which both drivers can more or less equally be blamed.

This leaves only one final possibility - that the accident is Michael Schumacher's responsibility.

I believe this to be true for these reasons;

1) Again, MS made no move to avoid the accident.

2) There is no evidence that DH's pass was anything but a legitimate passing attempt.

3) If MS was unaware of DH's where-abouts on the rack, it is still MS's fault - this is what mirrors are for. I think it is wrong to suggest MS is blameless if he didn't know where DH was - I would argue that if he was unaware of where his closest competitor was on the track, then he just as deeply implicated by his ignorance of what should have been his greatest concern at that moment.

4) Both cars appear to be under control until the Benetton is launched by the Williams front wheel. The fact that the cars were completely under control until the contact tells us that DH had every intention of trying to avoid MS (braking to the extent of locking up), but MS had no intention of trying to avoid DH. MS had every opportunity to avoid the accident but did not, thus he must have had some compelling reason to want to be involved in such a low speed shunt.

5) Finally, MS is a professional driver, and even in 1994, he was recognized as a top flight driver. He was an experienced winner, and an experienced driver. To suggest that he was unable to avoid the accident or unable to see Hill simply does not jibe with the image that most Michael Schumacher fans wish us to have of him - the steely, controlled, super talented and strategically brilliant maestro who can drive bad cars through problems and control a car like no one else. His move was either one of gross negligence or breathtaking cynicism - and it matters not which, as reagrds this court case - it is enough to state simply that the accident can be laid at the feet of michael schumacher.

If the court agrees with me, in that DH's pass was not an unusual or dangerous maneuver, and that MS's failure to avoid the Williams is evidence of a willful act to in fact hit it, then I hope that the court will see fit to deliver a verdict of full responsibility for the accident, or rather a verdict of guilty, to Michael Schumacher.

His incident with the wall was due to mid-corner oversteer, not turn-in oversteer. It is also possible that he touched the inside ripple strip. The two types of oversteer are totally unrelated.

He was only making very small turns to the right and he had to correct those. It took until the third try to get it right. The evidence is there for everyone to see. If you cannot tell that those first two right-turn steering inputs indicate a handling problem then you have no place in this court case in trying to make a technical argument.

You are forgetting that both sides of the suspension are connected by tortion bars and tie rods and that a bent car/suspension usually causes uncontrolled weight transfer, often resulting in oversteer. You are also forgetting that an increase in castor on the inside front would easily provide the potential for oversteer on right hand corners. Further, such damage can have unpredicatable effects. For example, the car may have understeered in left hand corners.

I move that JBDrake's technical arguments be struck from the record as they fail to appreciate even the most obvious technical evidence in this case; that MS's swerving was caused by a handling problem with his car.

Thats easy. As I've said before, MS did not know that the handling was so bad until his first right-turn steering input. This occured approximately 2 seconds before Hill lunged down the inside. During those 2 seconds, Hill moved from being one car width to the left of MS, to one car width to the right of MS. During this time, MS would not be looking in his mirrors as he tries to control the car. Consequently, MS probably thought that DH was on the outside of him; not the inside. MS was not shutting the door on anyone, he was just controlling the car to the apex of the corner.

I realise that others are insisting that MS would have seen Hill on the inside of the right hander, but I have already argued that point previously. You do not look in your mirror whilst trying to hit an apex of a corner. If you do in a race car, you usually miss the apex by a metre. MS did not miss the apex at all so it obvious that MS was looking at the apex and not Hill.

The last time MS saw Hill, he was on MS's left side. So pulling off the racing line to the left of the circuit would been the wrong thing to do from MS's perspective because he would have thought that he might hit Hill. You see MS is really a very caring race driver.

The still shot above is taken only 2 seconds prior to MS's first right-turn steering input that tells him for sure there is a problem with the car. The shot that you have produced is mere fractions of a second after MS's car stops bouncing after crossing the ripple strip and you can see that he is already on the racing line and presumably accellerating full. We have already established that MS may have seen DH in his left rear vision mirror during the track re-entry, so which direction do you think he should have gone in to avoid DH??????????? He turned right of course; avoiding Hill and covering his line for the next corner. Unfortunately, it is this right turn that indicates that his car is damaged. Only 2 seconds after entering the track. What more would you have him do in this 2 seconds other than move away from where he last saw Hill???? Are you insinuating that after the 2 seconds it took for MS to first notice the poor handling, that MS should have backed off the throttle????? That would have resulted in DH running up the back of MS.

So he should have turned left after he saw Hill on his left??????????? That was the only thing he could have done differently and it makes no sense what-so-ever. Unless, of course you want MS to glance the wall and just pull over before he has even re-entered the circuit and before he has reasonably determined whether the car has a problem or not. That would be just plain rediculous for someone who is being paid millions upon millions upon millions to win races. He would have looked damn stupid explaining things if there was just a broken rim.

The key to this issue is that MS does not have to turn his head to see the mirror. Sure, turning his head would mean that he would be looking directly at the mirror, but he does not have to do this. When you have a quick glance in the mirror, you would not normally move your head unless you were on a straight with no cars beside you. To move your head to look in the mirror whilst turning-in to the apex of a corner is a ludicrous suggestion.

The first time his head turns, he is just following the apex of the corner as he gets closer to it but has yet to turn in. There is nothing to suggest that he is looking at Hill and there is nothing to suggest that he has even seen Hill.

The second movement is probably a reflex to a movement in MS's peripheral vision, which happened to be Hill's car. Why would he suddenly look at Hill if he was expecting the impact? It is because he wasn't expecting an impact because he though Hill was either behind him or to the left of him. Of course, when MS looks to the right, it is way too late to avoid the accident.

Yes, and he can clearly see the mirror by just moving his eyes. There is no point in turning your head to see the mirror; you cannot see any more than if you keep your head straight. Usually, it is more important to see where you are going than to see where you have been.

I have nothing to add to Bruce's masterful argument. In particular, I feel that the lack of a hint of an avoidance move by Mr Schumacher is especially indicative of his intentions.

For the record, I wish to point out that I too felt that Mr Schumacher had been done wrong by the FIA with extraordinarily severe sanctions which seriously hampered his chances at an almost certain WDC victory. In that sense, I felt that the right guy won the WDC at the end. However, in the present case, we were asked to determine responsability in a specific incident, irrelevant of peripheral circumstances. Bruce certainly made the case that Mr Schumacher, and Mr Schumacher alone, is entirely to blame for the incident. His '94 WDC victory will forever be tarnished by this act, IMO.

The differences between mid-corner & turn-in oversteer are minor.
The causes can vary quite a bit, but in the end both of them involve a loss of traction at the rear end which will cause you to spin if not corrected.

If this is wrong then please explain why.



Where did I state that there is no way he had a technical problem?
Where is the technical evidence I'm failing to appreciate?

You claimed he was suffering from oversteer.
I said there was no evidence to suggest such a thing in the video.
He makes a small right turn with the wheel then straightens it, the car makes a small right turn and then straightens up. Then repeat.
Where are the signs of his rear end losing grip? Where are his corrections to the steering to bring it back under control again?
Perhaps you could draw for us a diagram explaining how you arrived at your conclusions?

Adelaide 1994, damn....

Schumacher's attempt to crash Hill out of the race, in order to secure his 1st ever title.

This action was deliberate, because Schumacher's race was over already before he hitted Hill. There were that weekend already rumors in the pits that Schumacher already made his mind up what to do if he couldn't win it fair and square.

The collision itself, in the beginning of the corner you see a line on the road.



You see Hill is already next to Schumacher when they APPROACH the line on the road, this line, is particulary the point were Schumacher throws his steering wheel to the right, while watching very carefully where Hill was.

Hill was in the right place for Schumacher.

When he won he heared it from a marchall around the track, he was overjoyed. But he had not the chance to talk to the team before he would be there.

In his trip back to the pits, he walked past the Ferrari pitbox, where Jos Verstappens manager was one of the 1st who was able to congratulate him. But he also asked him a little question: "Did you do it on purpose Michael? " Michael smiled with a big fat grim on his face and accepted his congrats, and then walked to his own pitcrew, where he could party all night long.

The same intention as Jerez 97? Most highly likely. But absolutely not the same result. This is where the big joke began.

Michael Schumacher >> GUILTY