Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20770 replies to this topic

#6851 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 October 2010 - 22:15

That´s a valid point, in Michael´s heyday Michael had the most competitive car for many years, together with a watertight contractual #1 position in his team. No wonder he finds it harder now that he is not in that priviledged postion anymore.

pfft if red bull were competent they would have run away with the championship already

Advertisement

#6852 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 October 2010 - 22:30

Many will take that remark as an empty threat, but it sounds much more like a promise from the Schumacher of old. [/color]


Go Michael :up:



That will be something if Merc can give him what Ferrari did from 97 on.


#6853 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 October 2010 - 22:36

pfft if red bull were competent they would have run away with the championship already


No michael and the above poster are right. He says the cars are more competitive, meaning the two red bulls can also take points off each other (not allowed in schumachers day), as they have indeed done. In addition to shooting themselves in the foot.
Give Webber a Barrichello or Irvine contract, and you have one less competitive car for the teams main entry.

Edited by Mr2s, 17 October 2010 - 22:40.


#6854 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 October 2010 - 22:57

No michael and the above poster are right. He says the cars are more competitive, meaning the two red bulls can also take points off each other (not allowed in schumachers day), as they have indeed done. In addition to shooting themselves in the foot.
Give Webber a Barrichello or Irvine contract, and you have one less competitive car for the teams main entry.

he pretty much was anyway until vettel started beeing stupid throwing races away..

ramming button at spa , his own team mate wherever it was, anymore i cant remember?

#6855 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 28,129 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 17 October 2010 - 23:54

he pretty much was anyway until vettel started beeing stupid throwing races away..

ramming button at spa , his own team mate wherever it was, anymore i cant remember?


Think you will find that Webber is pretty equal in the ramming stakes this year though.

#6856 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 03:51

I'm really tired of hearing the case that 2010 drivers are better now than ALL PREVIOUS generations of racers before hand ...
Where is this scientific PROOF that Vettel and co are faster and more complete drivers to the ones who were racing in the 90's ?
There is none ... This is all BS....Is a Lewis Hamilton or Fernando Alonso faster than a Mika Hakkinen or Michael Schumacher at their PRIMES ?? Hard to swallow and far from reality .....


Totally provable.

The advancements in nutrition and training, both physical and especially psychological are ongoing and continuous - nutritionists have just been banned from the grid monitoring their drivers up to the very last minute. A little different from Keke having a smoke at the last minute or James and his hemp and hump.

Then theres the attitude, when i was a teen I could do 720's on skateboards, mono wheel BMX, take tabletops in MX - watch any "Extreme Games" today and see what they do, simply unbeleiveable, so yes I do believe todays young F1 driver is willing to push harder and closer to the limit for a result.

The record books are constantly changing in every sport due to better knowledge of the human systems, thinking that billion dollar motor sports is exempt from improvements in this critical area of performance is just extremely naive.

Hamilton, Kubica, Rosberg and Vettle all came through together and you think what, it's just a coincidence they are all at the pointy end so quickly?


#6857 DarthRonzo

DarthRonzo
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 04:21

Schumy is doing great advertising for the Silver Arrow Co.

"I can win with Ferrari, but not with Mercedes".

#6858 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:00

Totally provable.

The advancements in nutrition and training, both physical and especially psychological are ongoing and continuous - nutritionists have just been banned from the grid monitoring their drivers up to the very last minute. A little different from Keke having a smoke at the last minute or James and his hemp and hump.

Then theres the attitude, when i was a teen I could do 720's on skateboards, mono wheel BMX, take tabletops in MX - watch any "Extreme Games" today and see what they do, simply unbeleiveable, so yes I do believe todays young F1 driver is willing to push harder and closer to the limit for a result.

The record books are constantly changing in every sport due to better knowledge of the human systems, thinking that billion dollar motor sports is exempt from improvements in this critical area of performance is just extremely naive.

Hamilton, Kubica, Rosberg and Vettle all came through together and you think what, it's just a coincidence they are all at the pointy end so quickly?

I agree with you to some degree. You forgot to account in your assumption two very important things:
1) The time limit you have to count in this assumption the time which is needed to develop better drivers in average in comparison to previous generation because of the changes made in training system, nutrition, fitness level etc.
2) There is also the limit of human body. You have to answer your self have these drivers already hit the limit of human body in F1 racing? If the answer is yes than there is no more improvement in comparison to previous generation/s even if you change training nutrition or fitness etc. or all the improvement which we see are because of the cars.


#6859 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:18

Schumy is doing great advertising for the Silver Arrow Co.

"I can win with Ferrari, but not with Mercedes".

why use quotation as if he actually said that when you know he didnt . . . noone could win the championship in this mercedes anyway what do you expect him to say? yea cars great build me another one with just as many flaws next year and we can win the championship , get the weight distribution totally wrong again because i like the handicap , maybe get button in for some testing during the winter so he push the design of the car towards a steaming turd.

maybe you want another rosberg who can win the championship , could have got pole at nearly every race etc rather than someone who is realistic and tells it like it is.

what did both drivers say at the start of the year again? one knew from the off it wasnt good enough

Edited by arknor, 18 October 2010 - 08:18.


Advertisement

#6860 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:21

Newer generation drivers go through intenstive training programs that run over years before they even dare to think about F1
they are mentally more prepared and have a lot more knowledge about the technical aspects.
Even fans like us understand a lot of concept which were only available to technicians in f1 a few decades ago. we are here debating a lot about handling and stuff
there is simply so much information that everybody shares, the level gets higher and higher

I am not sure the peaks are so much higher but the average level for sure it is

I was reading Karun's article and he was mentioning about the ECU providing acceleation under braking to improve stability. I remember MS used to do this himself (keep the foot on the throttle even when braking). Guess what, the ECU does it now

there are no "tricks" you can keep...that's why we see people generally pretty fast when things go their way or start to struggle a little when they don't

we also have a different view on struggling that 10 years ago...constantly being 0.2-0.3 from your team mate today is a big problem....

#6861 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:37

Thanks, baddog, that is a proper and reasonable answer.

It still puzzles me then if it is true that he gets "a great deal of unreasonable abuse" about it. Naturally it concerns him and he cannot sit wholly happy - when Rubens tried in the same way to reassert himself he was termed a "whiner".

Now is he getting a pounding from Rosberg or not, that´s a good question.

Because if he isn´t, then it is all down to race luck who of the two was the driver to become the number one for the year (following your line of reasoning) as determined by the first races of the year - meaning, that because the team suits their strategies now to accommodate Rosberg, the car is being developed for Rosberg ("the car was not always the same") and other factors that seem to generally not go in the favour of MS, then he sees now the reverse side of something that many of his teammates have experienced throughout the years.

You have me puzzled here, baddog. I never believed that this could ever happen to Michael.


Rubens is a proven whiner though, Aditya, and has been so throughout his long career. Schumacher has rarely been outspoken or so vocal. I don't think it's fair to term Schumacher a whiner just yet - based on one outspoken comment to a newspaper. Rubens on the other hand has done it on live TV in front of hundreds of millions on numerous occasion.


#6862 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:43

here, here.

So the 2010 season comparison has ended for Ferrari and Mercedes, as both Massa and Schumy can't catch [outscore / outpace] their mates.
That means Massa and Schumy sucks on slick tires and no TC, as well as being poor qualifiers in low tanks.
Nothing to makerade their real tallent this time.
So no uber alles in all kind of cars and conditions, like the F1 greats.


Did the 1995 Benneton have traction control?
The 1997 Ferrari?
The 1998 Ferrari?
The 1999 Ferrari?
The 2000 Ferrari?

Didn't Schumacher win with slick tyres in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997? Or are all these imagined events by millions of people and Schumacher does just simply 'suck'? You should stop reading gutter press material, and go and analyse history.

Or are you just hanging onto the events of 1994?

#6863 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:49

That´s a valid point, in Michael´s heyday Michael had the most competitive car for many years, together with a watertight contractual #1 position in his team. No wonder he finds it harder now that he is not in that priviledged postion anymore.



Ahh but Aditya, #1 status is earned. It isn't a right. The other guy has to match and beat the other guy to get a fair crack. Look at Webber-Vettel for instance. Vettel was clearly favoured yet Mark Webber established his dominance over Vettel and has the team onside now. Schumacher's team mates have never done that and just whined (Rubens) or left because the heat in the kitchen was too high.

You have to make your mark within a team; Schumacher did that and by rights became defacto number one.

#6864 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 18,477 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:51

Did the 1995 Benneton have traction control?
The 1997 Ferrari?
The 1998 Ferrari?
The 1999 Ferrari?
The 2000 Ferrari?


Those are all very good questions! :)

#6865 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 08:58

Did the 1995 Benneton have traction control?
The 1997 Ferrari?
The 1998 Ferrari?
The 1999 Ferrari?
The 2000 Ferrari?

Didn't Schumacher win with slick tyres in 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1997? Or are all these imagined events by millions of people and Schumacher does just simply 'suck'? You should stop reading gutter press material, and go and analyse history.

Or are you just hanging onto the events of 1994?

we did this already 1994 he didnt have traction control , if you can proove otherwise im sure the FIA would be very intrested

1994 FIA investigations found LAUNCH CONTROL, which some newspapers/websites reported as LAUNCH CONTROL [traction control]

there was no traction control apart from during the launch of the car because it was launch control , if you look into how the launch control actually worked in 1994 on the benneton its not possible to have any traction control anywhere other than the start of the car

#6866 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:04

if you look into how the launch control actually worked in 1994 on the benneton its not possible to have any traction control anywhere other than the start of the car


Nonsense; it could easily have worked at times other than the start as it was fundamentally the same thing. If you were around at the time you would have read many techincal geezers telling you how. Whether it was used, or not, is the point in question.


#6867 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:05

Those are all very good questions! :)


Well, the cars passed the FIA tests so I guess they must have been illegal. Or is there some conspiracy here where the FIA have now been on Schumacher's payroll since 1995? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Didn't Mclaren have an illegal car in 1998 with the third brake pedal?

Didn't Renault have an illegal mass damper in 2006?

Or is only Schumacher under scrutiny?

#6868 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:07

Didn't Mclaren have an illegal car in 1998 with the third brake pedal?


Not until the FIA decided it was illegal. It didn't break any rules.

Didn't Renault have an illegal mass damper in 2006?


Not until the FIA decided it was illegal. It didn't break any rules.

Or is only Schumacher under scrutiny?


I'm not for all this 'Michael can't drive without TC' stuff because it's bollocks; however, this tread is about him!

#6869 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:08

Nonsense; it could easily have worked at times other than the start as it was fundamentally the same thing. If you were around at the time you would have read many techincal geezers telling you how. Whether it was used, or not, is the point in question.



You can't imply that it was used and then retract it by questioning if it was or wasn't used.

Did Schumacher cheat or didn't he cheat in 1994? What about his team mates? What about other cars? What about Schumacher's team mates? Why didn't the FIA catch them? Why weren't they reprimanded, fined or ejected out of the championship?

#6870 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:09

Not until the FIA decided it was illegal. It didn't break any rules.



Not until the FIA decided it was illegal. It didn't break any rules.



I'm not for all this 'Michael can't drive without TC' stuff because it's bollocks; however, this tread is about him!



If those cars didn't brake rules, why did the FIA decide they were illegal? :rotfl:

Don't tell me, they were on Ferraris payroll :rotfl:

Edited by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001, 18 October 2010 - 09:09.


#6871 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,127 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:09

Didn't Mclaren have an illegal car in 1998 with the third brake pedal?

Didn't Renault have an illegal mass damper in 2006?


No.

No.

Although of course the fia was in ferari's pocket back then, so whether something was illegal didn't matter as long as the device got banned.

#6872 Tombstone

Tombstone
  • Member

  • 1,127 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:11

Nonsense; it could easily have worked at times other than the start as it was fundamentally the same thing. If you were around at the time you would have read many techincal geezers telling you how. Whether it was used, or not, is the point in question.


It would be interestin if Stepney was eventually able to publish his book - sadly something I doubt will happen. I believe he was a Bennetton before moving to ferari.

Edited by Tombstone, 18 October 2010 - 09:11.


#6873 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:22

You can't imply that it was used and then retract it by questioning if it was or wasn't used.


I didn't imply it was used. I don't know if it was used. I know it could have been and was refuting the posters assertion that it could only have been 'launch control', which isn't so.

#6874 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:26

If those cars didn't brake rules, why did the FIA decide they were illegal? :rotfl:

Don't tell me, they were on Ferraris payroll :rotfl:


I never said anything about the FIA being on Ferrari's payroll, and don't know why you're rolling on the floor laughing when anyon with an inch of sense knows that neither the McLaren brake pedal or the Renault mass damper were not in any way against the regulations.

#6875 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:40

I never said anything about the FIA being on Ferrari's payroll, and don't know why you're rolling on the floor laughing when anyon with an inch of sense knows that neither the McLaren brake pedal or the Renault mass damper were not in any way against the regulations.

All those parts in different teams made the car and the driver quicker in the race track so if you are referring that Scumacher won WDC in 1994 because of TC than Alosno won WDC because of mass damper in 2005 and Mika won his WDC because of the third pedal break.

Edited by slaveceru, 18 October 2010 - 09:41.


#6876 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 09:48

if you are referring that Scumacher won WDC in 1994 because of TC


I'm not, but your argument wouldn't stand up even if I was; launch control - let alone traction control - was expressly forbidden by the regulations at the beginning of 1994. There was no such rule forbidding the mass damper or the third brake pedal.

Edited by Lifew12, 18 October 2010 - 09:49.


#6877 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 10:24

we did this already 1994 he didnt have traction control , if you can proove otherwise im sure the FIA would be very intrested

1994 FIA investigations found LAUNCH CONTROL, which some newspapers/websites reported as LAUNCH CONTROL [traction control]

there was no traction control apart from during the launch of the car because it was launch control , if you look into how the launch control actually worked in 1994 on the benneton its not possible to have any traction control anywhere other than the start of the car


Recently I have watched a number of 1994 races and there is not a single start of Schumacher's that is abnormal.

For those who weren't around in 1994 this race, the British GP, is the key to all of the bullshit that happened to Schumacher - Adelaide 1994, has sweet stuff all to do with what some of the folks here carry on about - had this crap not happened to Schumacher at the British GP then Hill wouldn't even have had a look in at Adelaide. Interesting perspective and comments from the commentators 10 years later as they look back including David Hobbs, a very respected English driver.

Heres some of the points;

Stewards decision 30 minutes after the incident was illegal (15 minute rule)
Black flag without notification to the team.
Black flag for what ??? (related to the actual race)
Black flag retracted and 5 second stop/go given (again for what?? related to the race)
Penalty served yet ends up 3 race ban and 1/2 million dollar fine - WTF??

http://v.youku.com/v...MzMTg4MjM2.html

Seriously, Brits should be embarrassed by the 1994 British GP - lucky you got Adelaide to whine and bitch about and simply ignore the rest of the season.


1994 on track =

Schumacher 10 wins (won 6 of the first 7 races, number 8 was the Brit GP which he was leading)
Vs
Hill 3 wins - MS stuck in 5th gear at Spain, the British GP shamozzle and a tactical error at Japan in the second heat (MS won the first heat) but all these 3 Schumacher was leading and then Hill won by default.

And some of you are still adamant that Schumacher didn't deserve the 1994 WDC??? :rotfl: :rotfl: I fart in your general direction.

Edited by cheapracer, 18 October 2010 - 10:28.


#6878 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 10:58

http://v.youku.com/v...MzMTg4MjM2.html

Seriously, Brits should be embarrassed by the 1994 British GP - lucky you got Adelaide to whine and bitch about and simply ignore the rest of the season.

Interesting that on 3:55 Hakkinen also passes Alesi on the formation lap. Did he get a penalty? Guess not, as he finished 3rd.

Also, as the commentators say: "The same thing happened at the Brazil grand prix and nothing was made of it" and "This is the first time I'd ever heard of anything like this. Every grid I'd ever been on it got completely jumbled up during the formation lap".

A mild infraction, with the FIA not adhering to its own rules, lacking communication and making an altogether mess out of it results in a 3 race DSQ for MSC.

#6879 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:05

we did this already 1994 he didnt have traction control , if you can proove otherwise im sure the FIA would be very intrested

1994 FIA investigations found LAUNCH CONTROL, which some newspapers/websites reported as LAUNCH CONTROL [traction control]

there was no traction control apart from during the launch of the car because it was launch control , if you look into how the launch control actually worked in 1994 on the benneton its not possible to have any traction control anywhere other than the start of the car

Its funny because one of Schuey's Benetton's came up for auction and it was specified as having 'traction control'. I remember seeing it in Autosport and it was all discussed in a jokey manner. They can't really prove whether it had this feature in 1994 or whether the millionnaire who bought it in the first place paid many thousands to have it installed after the season was through. :)

Advertisement

#6880 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:06

Seriously, Brits should be embarrassed by the 1994 British GP - lucky you got Adelaide to whine and bitch about and simply ignore the rest of the season.

Not embarrased at all, Damon got there in the end. :)

#6881 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:18

Heres some of the points;

Stewards decision 30 minutes after the incident was illegal (15 minute rule)
Black flag without notification to the team.
Black flag for what ??? (related to the actual race)
Black flag retracted and 5 second stop/go given (again for what?? related to the race)
Penalty served yet ends up 3 race ban and 1/2 million dollar fine - WTF??

Seriously, Brits should be embarrassed by the 1994 British GP - lucky you got Adelaide to whine and bitch about and simply ignore the rest of the season.


Although I thought the penalty harsh and the rule absurd, I really do feel that, if you are going to give us 'points', you should get them right.

The penalty was conveyed to the team both verbally and electronically, a few minutes apart, coming up to half an hour into the race. The fifteen miinute rule was discussed at the hearing (you can find the conclusion on the FIA site) and was, rather glibly, dismissed as 'a formality'. Still, this doesn't quite get past the fact that Schumacher had, in fact, broken a rule, and that the team were informed and - as Michael admitted at the hearing - had informed him, and told him to carry on.

Rather as there was a fifteen minute 'rule' for applying penalties, so there was a three lap one for carryin them out; Benetton, for reasons I shall never understand, chose not to have their driver do so.

Around ten minutes after the team had been told of the penalty, the FIA applied the black flag; the team knew of this (it was not, as written above, given 'without notification' and neither was it, at any point, 'retracted') and at the hearing Michael said he hadn't seen it. He had seen, he admitted, the 'Car 5' board that hung out with it - right next to it - but not the flag itself. The board, quite rightly, rejected this claim as everyone could see the bloody thing.

It was, alll in all, far from an embarrasment to 'us brits' unless, of course, they happened to be Schumacher supporters (of whom it may surprise you to know there were quite a few back then) but rather a day for which bennetton should hang their heads in shame, for in their attempt to be clever and try and get one over the rule makers they lost their driver valuable points. Had they simply accepted the stop/go there would have been much less of a problem.



#6882 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:36

Its funny because one of Schuey's Benetton's came up for auction and it was specified as having 'traction control'. I remember seeing it in Autosport and it was all discussed in a jokey manner. They can't really prove whether it had this feature in 1994 or whether the millionnaire who bought it in the first place paid many thousands to have it installed after the season was through. :)

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.

#6883 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 11:45

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.

If the FIA have proof they've never made that public or at least gone into any detail. The launch control aspect was proven and Benetton agreed to take it off the car. Several teams were suspicious at the time due to the iregular sound the car made when cornering. It was investigated but to my knowledge nothing was ever proven or disclosed to the viewing public. Its in the past anyway and is irrelevant IMO. :)

#6884 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:00

FIA has proof the car didnt have traction control the guy probably confuses launch control with traction control thanks to how the press reported it.


No, they don't have proof of that at all. All the FIA found was that there was an access mode hidden that allowed a function titled 'launch control' to be accessed. The team described how this operated, and it was very similar to traction control in just about every way (I think the description is quoted a couple of pages back.)

the advert for the car was featured widely in a number of magazines, I have a copy of Motor Sport with it in and a C&SC somewhere carrying a later advert when it was resold; in both cases it is advertised as 'as raced in 1994 ... complete with traction control....'

I doubt, in any case, that Benetton were the only team who realised how easy it was to hoodwink the FIA with hidden codes back then, as none of them were particularly stupid.

#6885 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:03

Wasn't that auction a fake?

#6886 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:09

I'm not, but your argument wouldn't stand up even if I was; launch control - let alone traction control - was expressly forbidden by the regulations at the beginning of 1994. There was no such rule forbidding the mass damper or the third brake pedal.

The same is true for mass dumper or a third break paddle because the FIA has interpreted it so, so what is then your point?

#6887 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:37

Although I thought the penalty harsh and the rule absurd, I really do feel that, if you are going to give us 'points', you should get them right.

The penalty was conveyed to the team both verbally and electronically, a few minutes apart, coming up to half an hour into the race.

The fifteen miinute rule was discussed at the hearing (you can find the conclusion on the FIA site) and was, rather glibly, dismissed as 'a formality'.

Still, this doesn't quite get past the fact that Schumacher had, in fact, broken a rule, and that the team were informed and - as Michael admitted at the hearing - had informed him, and told him to carry on.

Rather as there was a fifteen minute 'rule' for applying penalties, so there was a three lap one for carryin them out; Benetton, for reasons I shall never understand, chose not to have their driver do so.

Around ten minutes after the team had been told of the penalty, the FIA applied the black flag; the team knew of this (it was not, as written above, given 'without notification' and neither was it, at any point, 'retracted') and at the hearing Michael said he hadn't seen it. He had seen, he admitted, the 'Car 5' board that hung out with it - right next to it - but not the flag itself. The board, quite rightly, rejected this claim as everyone could see the bloody thing.


I believe I have them right.

Correct, half an hour and the team were confused as to what the charge was for and if it applied or not. Also the penalty was incorrectly worded.

Oh so the rules that are written in the same rulebook, which they are, apply to teams and drivers at will but not to anybody else such as Stewards in this case and including Hill being handed and transporting a flag on the in lap which is about as severe if not worse than what Schumacher did.

No, Schumacher didn't break a rule, in the big picture which you yourself have just mentioned, the team told him to keep driving - the team was responsible for this action, not Schumacher. drivers do what the team tell them to.

So everyone "could see the bloody thing" could they? Does that include Alesi for example who one race ran out of fuel while for 10 laps his crew had an "IN" board hanging out? And that isn't the only case of non sighted messages. You have no proof of if the board was sighted or not.

Anyway, whats you beef - Schumacher served a 5 second stop/go that lost him any chance of a win.

If you wish to support the Stewards decision on this major fopar, I think thats sad for motor racing, I have often remarked that races should be run on the track and any penalties applied in time or money after but don't ruin the race for the fans especially with stop/go's that can't be given back if proven wrong.

It was, alll in all, far from an embarrasment to 'us brits' unless, of course, they happened to be Schumacher supporters (of whom it may surprise you to know there were quite a few back then) but rather a day for which bennetton should hang their heads in shame, for in their attempt to be clever and try and get one over the rule makers they lost their driver valuable points. Had they simply accepted the stop/go there would have been much less of a problem.


You seem to be confused, they did accept the stop/go, it was a black flag for the henious, shocking crime of being in front on the warm up lap and being told half hour into the race they were fighting against and not "clever', more like justly.

You still don't seem to get it - of how stupid the whole decision process by the Stewards was including themselves breaking the rules. The rule infringement was outside of the race and had no bearing on it, deserved maybe punishments such as money or grid positions next race to teach respect etc but black flag for being in front on the warm up lap?

Give it a break. Black flagged for passing on the warm up lap :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You should feel ashamed, what a highlight of British Racing Steward's decisions that day was..



#6888 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:45

Wasn't that auction a fake?

I hadn't heard that. I know the car sold for millions.

Edited by tifosiMac, 18 October 2010 - 12:47.


#6889 JPW

JPW
  • Member

  • 3,335 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:53

Give it a break. Black flagged for passing on the warm up lap :rolleyes: :rolleyes: You should feel ashamed, what a highlight of British Racing Steward's decisions that day was..

Yep big Schumi was hard done by that year, 2 disqualifications and a two-race ban but it made it all the much sweeter when he took the championship against Damon in the end. :up:

#6890 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 12:55

it all the much sweeter when he took the championship against Damon in the end. :up:

He certainly took it. Smashed right into it in fact. :p

#6891 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:22

I believe I have them right.


No, you don't.

You seem to be confused, they did accept the stop/go, it was a black flag for the henious, shocking crime of being in front on the warm up lap and being told half hour into the race they were fighting against and not "clever', more like justly.


No, the black flag was for not taking the stop/go penalty in the three laps allowed. The stop/go was for the warm up lap infringement which I have already said I considered absurd - althoug it was in the rules (and still is).



#6892 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:24

Wasn't that auction a fake?

It wasn't an action but a private sale, and it was very real.

#6893 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:27

The same is true for mass dumper or a third break paddle because the FIA has interpreted it so, so what is then your point?


The rule for the banning of launch control was in the regulations prior to the start of the 1994 season; there were no rules about either third brake pedals or the mass damper until the FIA decided their needed to be one well into the season. You could include many other instances, such as the famous Ferrari flexi floor ruling, where teh regulations were changed to make something that was not illegal so despite the regulations allowing it.

#6894 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:41

It wasn't an action but a private sale, and it was very real.


The car with the description that it had "traction control" was in an ebay listing. The listing was removed at some point but i'm not sure if the car sale, in the end, was fake or not.

So the whole craze about that car came from an ebay listing that was removed.

Edited by Diablobb81, 18 October 2010 - 13:42.


#6895 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:51

The car with the description that it had "traction control" was in an ebay listing. The listing was removed at some point but i'm not sure if the car sale, in the end, was fake or not.

So the whole craze about that car came from an ebay listing that was removed.


No it wasn't; it was a private advert at a well known dealer in the classifieds in Motor Sport, Classic and Sports Car and possibly Autosport, and it appeared twice. I remember it causing a bit of a stir on the forums at the time, and am sure I still have the magazines in question. I'll try and dig it out and scan it when I have a moment later on.

#6896 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:55

Recently I have watched a number of 1994 races and there is not a single start of Schumacher's that is abnormal.

For those who weren't around in 1994 this race, the British GP, is the key to all of the bullshit that happened to Schumacher - Adelaide 1994, has sweet stuff all to do with what some of the folks here carry on about - had this crap not happened to Schumacher at the British GP then Hill wouldn't even have had a look in at Adelaide. Interesting perspective and comments from the commentators 10 years later as they look back including David Hobbs, a very respected English driver.

Heres some of the points;

Stewards decision 30 minutes after the incident was illegal (15 minute rule)
Black flag without notification to the team.
Black flag for what ??? (related to the actual race)
Black flag retracted and 5 second stop/go given (again for what?? related to the race)
Penalty served yet ends up 3 race ban and 1/2 million dollar fine - WTF??

http://v.youku.com/v...MzMTg4MjM2.html

Seriously, Brits should be embarrassed by the 1994 British GP - lucky you got Adelaide to whine and bitch about and simply ignore the rest of the season.


1994 on track =

Schumacher 10 wins (won 6 of the first 7 races, number 8 was the Brit GP which he was leading)
Vs
Hill 3 wins - MS stuck in 5th gear at Spain, the British GP shamozzle and a tactical error at Japan in the second heat (MS won the first heat) but all these 3 Schumacher was leading and then Hill won by default.

And some of you are still adamant that Schumacher didn't deserve the 1994 WDC??? :rotfl: :rotfl: I fart in your general direction.


I tell you what's embarrassing.

Hill was schumacher's 2nd greatest rival( that he was able to beat) Employed as Prost's number 2, and Schumacher got himself in trouble using mind games and breaking rules even if you ignore the cheating benetton did.
Good on Hill that he abided by the rules at all times. When schumacher returned they recorded 1 win each taking the title down to the last race.

Whatever schumacher die hards think of Hill, he was never employed to be a title challenger in the first place, the bragging rights being used are almost cringe worthy.

Edited by Mr2s, 18 October 2010 - 13:57.


#6897 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,755 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:55

it was a private advert at a well known dealer in the classifieds in Motor Sport, Classic and Sports Car and possibly Autosport, and it appeared twice. I remember it causing a bit of a stir on the forums at the time, and am sure I still have the magazines in question. I'll try and dig it out and scan it when I have a moment later on.


You could be right .

#6898 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 13:56

The car with the description that it had "traction control" was in an ebay listing. The listing was removed at some point but i'm not sure if the car sale, in the end, was fake or not.

So the whole craze about that car came from an ebay listing that was removed.


Sir, i malign you and apologise; there was, I now see, an ebay listing. This isn't the one I'm on about which was a good couple of years earlier and in a dealers advert.

#6899 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:02

No, you don't.



No, the black flag was for not taking the stop/go penalty in the three laps allowed. The stop/go was for the warm up lap infringement which I have already said I considered absurd - althoug it was in the rules (and still is).


I dont think it "absurd" that drivers are stopped from winding each other up on track before the race gets under way.
I cant see todays fan boys being happy if say Alonso was able to wind Hamilton up in the same way before every race.
Having raced I can see how it could be considered unsettling to some drivers.

Edited by Mr2s, 18 October 2010 - 14:02.


Advertisement

#6900 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 18 October 2010 - 14:04

I dont think it "absurd" that drivers are stopped from winding each other up on track before the race gets under way.
I cant see todays fan boys being happy if say Alonso was able to wind Hamilton up in the same way before every race.
Having raced I can see how it could be considered unsettling to some drivers.


Fair comment, but I would have to side with those who say a fine and reprimand would be a more relevant penalty than one that ruins the race for the spectators (no matter who the pepetrator may be).