79 replies to this topic

[RedFever]

From La Gazzetta dello Sport:

Q: Your opinion of your opponent Mika Hakkinen:

«Mika is an extraordinary character, you can see that particularly in the moments when he loses. In the past I have seen other drivers react in a completly opposite way, always lamenting or looking for excuses. Mika instead is a constantly positive man, he never loses track of reality.

He is by far the best opponent I could ever have. When I win the title against him, it makes my victory more special, if I lose the title, I lose against a formidable opponent and it's easier to accept the defeat. In the future, I really hope I will have more great seasons where I can fight against him».

[Mila]

something Damon Hill already knew.

[CeCe]

As boring as it may be, Mika's gentelmanly behavior has forced Michael to do the same. No way could he bad mouth such an upstanding character. It's actually refreshing and absolutely right that these two show each other some respect. And it's true, Michael's career has needed a great driver to beat and he's actually found one.

[mhferrari]

He probably was thinking of adding ...and David is the worst.

[Todd]

Mika also accepts defeat at Michael's hands much more graciously than he does David's, as he demonstrated so clearly in '99.

[rw shepherd]

Hakkinen's gracious praise of Schumacher's victory must inspire all of us who are Hakkinen supporters to be equally magnanimous and so I congratulate Schumacher also. I am sure however that Mika has his own private thoughts about the start of the race in Japan which he has not publicized in the interests of being an unhappy but good loser. After a special effort was made to warn the drivers about good behaviour with the title on the line and appointing special stewards to deal with any violations, the start in Japan, in my opinion, warranted a stop-go penalty to Schumacher. Two direction changes off the line and forcing Hakkinen into the pitlane exit would seem to have violated the spirit of the warning provided to the drivers. It is this sort of occurrence which perpetuates the notion that there are a different set of rules for Schumacher and Ferrari, witness the barge board violation last year which went unpenalised. I think that Hakkinen has still been the dominant driver this year and would have won the title by 30 points or so if the McLaren had been as reliable as the Ferrari (and no, Hakkinen is no harder on his car than Schumacher is on his).
Still, reliability is part of racing and Schumacher is a deserving winner of a nip and tuck battle given that he is one of the world's two top drivers.

This brings me to another point. In the aftermath of Schumacher's victory, Gerald Donaldson and John Watson were interviewed on TSN in Canada and were gushing about Micheal being the world's best driver and of how Mika, two time world driving champion, just wasn't quite in the same class as Schumacher. The most preposterous comment was that Schumacher is faster in the pit lane and actually practices this. Give your head a shake and get that pea brain of yours rolling around a little, Gerry!!!!! Isn't it funny how they overlooked the fact that, all season, at will, Hakkinen passed Schumacher on the start when Schumacher qualified ahead of him. How about the number of times that Hakkinen saved his tires and brakes through the first third of a race and then started to push, reeling Schumacher in. They babbled about Michael staying out for 3 extra laps to push on a light fuel load and how Mika just wasn't quite fast enough on the greasy track even though Hakkinen was about 4 to 5 seconds behind, mostly due to traffic, and that margin never really changed much all the way to the end of the race, save for the last lap when Schumacher slowed down a lttle. I am sure that Hakkinen more than held his own in terms of fastest laps over the course of the season. I have watched F1 for a long time and don't recall a passing manoeuver like Hakkinen's at Spa this year by anyone else never mind Schumacher. And, somebody tell Gerry and John that it was Schumacher himself that Hakkinen set up on the previous lap and passed on the next one!!!!! The message is that there isn't much to choose between the 2. However, Donaldson and Watson are symptomatic of the problem with the bulk of the F1 media: they have crowned Schumacher as supreme, relative to Hakkinen, even though the evidence doesn't support this position. If Hakkinen wins, it is because Schumacher lost. If Schumacher wins, it is because he blew everyone else away. And of course, the media always proclaims, when Schumacher doesn't win, that the McLaren is really the best car. If you are Hakkinen, or anyone else for that matter , you can never elevate your status vis-a-vis Schumacher, because, according to the media, Schumacher always has an excuse when he loses that is not bestowed on any of the other drivers. None of this really matters, except that it shows a monumental lack of respect for all of the other competitors in the field. Hakkinen, the sport, the fans, and the rest of Schumacher's competitors are deserving of better.

[Todd]

Originally posted by rw shepherd
Hakkinen's gracious praise of Schumacher's victory must inspire all of us who are Hakkinen supporters to be equally magnanimous and so I congratulate Schumacher also. I am sure however that Mika has his own private thoughts about the start of the race in Japan which he has not publicized in the interests of being an unhappy but good loser.

You still have a way to go in your quest for learning by example. I'm sure Mika's primary complaint about the start of the race was that it didn't decide the result.

Originally posted by rw shepherd
After a special effort was made to warn the drivers about good behaviour with the title on the line and appointing special stewards to deal with any violations, the start in Japan, in my opinion, warranted a stop-go penalty to Schumacher. Two direction changes off the line and forcing Hakkinen into the pitlane exit would seem to have violated the spirit of the warning provided to the drivers. It is this sort of occurrence which perpetuates the notion that there are a different set of rules for Schumacher and Ferrari, witness the barge board violation last year which went unpenalised.

Please post a link to the feed you received that featured Michael changing his line twice in front of Mika. Hell, he didn't even succeed in doing it once. After Mika was next to him, moving away is perfectly legal, from what I can reason. I guess you can't be expected to know that, seeing as you must have started watching auto racing after the 2000 Foster's British Grand Prix. Otherwise, you'd have seen Mika defending his grid position in Brazil and Mika running Michael into the grass at Silverstone. This may not be the case though, as you would have noticed David Coulthard's start at Suzuka 2000 and not said, "that there are a different set of rules for Schumacher and Ferrari," if you were the perceptive sort. Are those the special rules that let Mika keep his points after being caught with an ECU box that had been opened, clearly contravening the letter of the rules? Are they the same special rules that you aren't using to challenge DC's moves in Austria and Suzuka?

Originally posted by rw shepherd
I think that Hakkinen has still been the dominant driver this year and would have won the title by 30 points or so if the McLaren had been as reliable as the Ferrari

Never mind. I can't believe I just wasted my time arguing with you. Mika had 3 mechanical DNFs. Michael had 2 mechanical DNFs. If Mika had 2 instead of 3, there is no mathematical way that he could have gained more than 10 points or Michael would have lost more than 4 points. The gap is currently 12 points. Therefore, Mika could lead by no more than 2 points today and win the title by no more than 12 points next week. 12 points is not in the "30 points or so" range, ergo, you are not worthy of my time. BTW, that 1 extra DNF could also have cost Mika 6 points and given Michael 0 points. That being the case, Michael would still have a 6 point lead going into Suzuka and an excellent chance of finishing with a 2 to 16 point championship. When you factor in that Michael lost 2 other races to the incompetence of Retardo Zonta and the combined mediocrity of DC and GF, then it is clear who the real "dominant driver this year" was. Thanks for being such a sore loser. It would be hard to fully enjoy victory over someone as classy as Mika Hakkinen, if he didn't have fans like you that is.

[rw shepherd]

Thank you for gracing me with a reply. If you don't think Schumacher ran Hakkinen into the pitlane exit, well, fine. If you think that with the ego of a Formula One driver, Hakkinen didn't give the start of the race a second thought, then you are the bonehead. Hey, genius, I guess the action taken by Schumacher didn't influence the outcome since Hakkinen went by Schumacher like he was standing still and Schumacher won anyway. Just so you know, that isn't a state secret, even in that great bastion of F1 you live in. Do you spend your free time expanding on Einstein's original Theory of Relativity work or what? Who is drunk now? As for your analysis of the points situation, I admitted that I didn't really have a mathematical handle on the number of points that Hakkinen had missed out on due to mechanical failure but I accept that you do and that I am mistaken. I gave full marks to Schumacher for his championship win but questioned the start of the race in Japan. For Schumacher fans, I guess that isn't enough. I didn't know that you wouldn't approve. I'm sure no-one is more impressed with you than you are with yourself. If you want to talk about wasting time, I can't believe I wasted any reading your drivel. If you think that McLaren opened the ECU box, great. Santa will be here soon, too!!!!! As for referring to Ricardo Zonta as "Retardo Zonta", your boyfriend had a great idea. I have actually experienced the pleasure of meeting Michael Schumacher and I am sure he would be abhorred that he has fans like you. I only wish that you lived here in Calgary so that we could discuss your post in person. I am sure your tone would be different.

[Hooster]

I think everyone would be better off if they considered what they post here carefully but not just write the first thing that comes to mind. Don't let yourself be carried away by your for or anti sentiments to such an extent that you loose sight of the facts.

I understand Michaels start at Suzuka may be considered aggressive. I don't like the type of whining exemplified by this quote however;

Originally posted by rw shepherd
Two direction changes off the line and forcing Hakkinen into the pitlane exit would seem to have violated the spirit of the warning provided to the drivers. It is this sort of occurrence which perpetuates the notion that there are a different set of rules for Schumacher and Ferrari, witness the barge board violation last year which went unpenalised

There is really no way to win with people like you, is there? MS changed his direction to avoid ramming Mika off the track. What would you have preferred, MS changing direction or MS ramming Mika off the track? Which? perhaps MS should have used Yoga to levitate his car out of the way and thus avoid changing direction?

I can't believe anyone is STILL going on about the barge boards. FYI they where ruled legal at proceedings witnessed by MacLaren and Stewart. Neither Mac nor Stewart had any complaints afterward. I wonder why you do. Do you have a bigger vested interest in the barge boards being illegal than Mac had or are you simply full of s!%*?

[Hooster]

Originally posted by rw shepherd
I think that Hakkinen has still been the dominant driver this year and would have won the title by 30 points or so if the McLaren had been as reliable as the Ferrari (and no, Hakkinen is no harder on his car than Schumacher is on his).

Is that supposed to be a joke? MS beat Mika fair and square this year. Live with it.

30 points or so? What did you do to get that number? Why not think before you post?

[selena]

Both Mika and Schuey really give each other a run for the money. As I have said many times before, there is very little to separate the two. Anyway, I am glad Schuey won the WDC title this year because he had put in so much effort at Ferrari for all those previous years from 1996 to now.

[Todd]

Originally posted by rw shepherd
I only wish that you lived here in Calgary so that we could discuss your post in person. I am sure your tone would be different.

You are right. If it weren't for the rules of this BB, I would insult you, your mother, and anyone else I could pin an association with you on. Good for you all.

[rw shepherd]

Isn't it just great that if one proposes a slightly different view with respect to any of the F1 related postings on this Bulletin Board, certain members feel it is their place to denigrate rather than discuss the facts. I never have claimed to be right, but I do have an opinion about F1 and I thought we were supposed to be exchanging those here. Maybe Todd could make all the postings on the BB and tell everyone what they are supposed to be thinking. If I am not worthy of your time, then I guess you are a moron for wasting your time, aren't you? I agree with the posting by Selena. As for the Hooster, "MS changed direction to avoid ramming Mika off the track". Oh, really? Get a pair of glasses. Now I agree that anything that Coulthard might say with respect to Schumacher should be taken with a grain of salt, but what about Jacques Villeneuve? And what does JV say about the tactics of MS? He has complained loudly about those swerving tactics all year (he has a little personal experience with this sort of behaviour from Schumacher or haven't you heard?). I'm sure he'd be with me on the start in Japan. So, I don't really care what Curly, Larry, and... have to say on the BB. As for barge boards, they were illegal. That's it. Why would Stewart or McLaren have wasted any oxygen complaining after the fix was in. I guess the Hooster spends his days banging his head against brick walls. A great vocation. As for me being full of ****, well, your bravado is just as pathetic and amusing as the T-boy's last effort. And just so you know, I've been watching F1 since long before you guys were just a twinkle in the unknown sailor's eye. I'll explain the 30 point figure to you after the Sepang race but you might want to brush up on your math skills, take off your Michael Schumacher skirts, put down your pom-poms and look at the season's results before that. Until then, the bottom line is that Michael Schumacher is the World Driving Champion and I don't think anyone will be taking that away from him nor should they. If that isn't enough for you Michael Schumacher fans, well, too bad.

[Phoo Kinnell]

Thread title should be changed to, "How to win friends and influence people".

[rw shepherd]

No kidding!!!!! Let's debate the facts respectfully without insults for a change.

[Hooster]

I have to admit I had a nice little laugh after I read your post rw S. How pathetic can you get?

Lets just think about what your actually saying, without insulting anyone.

Statement 1: You do not state it directly but you imply MS would not have rammed Mika had he not turned left when Mika and he were side by side at the start. Anyone can look a tape of the race and make his or her own judgment.

Statment 2: The Barge boards where illegal. I have to admit I am sick if debating this but according to the FIA the where legal. You may feel they were illegal for some reason or other but how relevant is that? Do you see any MS fans still going on about the missing seal on Mikas car?

Statment 3: Hooster spends his days banging his head against brick walls. What exactly are you saying here? That you are too stubborn and bigoted to listen to what anyone else has to say and if they disagree with you they may as well be banging their heads against brick walls?

Statement 4: Stewart and Mac wasted oxygen complaining after the fix was in. I expect you mean Stewart and Mac complained after the verdict about the barge boards. I am not sure about Mac but in Stewarts case you have the facts wrong, again. (If the barge boards had actually had any bearing on the WDC last year I would understand people going on about them.)

Statement 5: You will explain the 30 point figure after Sepang. Well, that is just too pathetic by far. If you make a mistake, at least be man enough to admit it.

I have not twisted the facts or insulted anyone here. I simply list the statements you made. Anyone with a rudmentary knowledge of the F1 subject can make his or her own judgment.

[Bex37]

This thread has gone off the rails. Relax and enjoy our common interest of F1. If you want violence, go to the local pub and pick a fight ..... but make sure its the small guy

Hey rw, I must admit that your post was always going to be controversial (nothing wrong with that). I'll be interested to see how you justify the 30 point gap that you allege Mika should have without reliability problems. Just remember, apply the same theories to the other drivers as well or you are likely to get shot down.

Anyway, here goes nothing.

Originally posted by rw shepherd
After a special effort was made to warn the drivers about good behaviour with the title on the line and appointing special stewards to deal with any violations, the start in Japan, in my opinion, warranted a stop-go penalty to Schumacher. Two direction changes off the line and forcing Hakkinen into the pitlane exit would seem to have violated the spirit of the warning provided to the drivers.

In one respect, I agree. That is, there was certainly no love lost between any of the drivers during that start. Certainly, MS's move across the track could have caused an accident, and I guess that opinions will differ on whether dangerous manouvres that are within the rules (as I believe it was - see below) should go unpenalised. You have to say that it is pretty well impossible to enforce something consistently where there is no clear rule defining the limits.

It was a huge risk for MS to drive across the track in the way that he did, but not for that particular race. An accident could have spelt disaster for his career. Even though I do not for one second believe that MS was driving unfairly, it is obvious that, with the usual media intervention, the consequences of accident with Mika at the start could have mirrored Jerez 97. This could have destroyed MS's career through the huge amount of personal pressure that would have been applied. For this reason, it is my opinion that MS would not have pulled such a move unless at the time he was totally justified in doing it.

Remember, MS was in front of Mika on pole, and he moved straight over to the right as soon as the start commenced. That is, when MS started moving, Mika could not have been next to him and therefore MS did not move over on Mika at that point in time. It is only once MS was mobile and already moving that Mika tried to pass. So how do we define the point at which MS should see Mika next to him and does MS have a responsibility to give way if MS is already heading in Mika's direction? If so, how far up beside MS would Mika have to be for MS to be forced to give way. A nose? A front wing? A front wheel? A barge board? If you say that MS should give way, where do you draw the line? Is it safe to put the onus for giving way on the guy who is in front who would have extreme difficulty even seeing the guy behind?

In light of above and logically speaking, you need to consider that Mika must have placed his car up the inside of MS after MS had already pointed his car across the track and whilst MS was a full car length in front of him. I think it is debateable as to who did the most dangerous thing; MS veering across the track, or; Mika sticking his car up the inside of someone who was clearly coming straight across the track. Don't forget, Mika knows that MS is entitled to come across the track and continue going in one direction. Why didn't he go on the other side? IMO, I think it is just the risk they were both willing to take to win the race. They both had fractions of seconds to make up their mind and that is what they did. In the end, their professionalism prevented an accident from happening. It was a great spectacle. What is the alternative; make everyone stay on the own side of the track until after the first corner???? (yuk!!)

In the aftermath of Schumacher's victory, Gerald Donaldson and John Watson were interviewed on TSN in Canada and were gushing about Micheal being the world's best driver and of how Mika, two time world driving champion, just wasn't quite in the same class as Schumacher.

I have to agree with you here; and I also have something to add. It is getting quite boring listening to the MS is king propaganda. Mika has proven he is a top class driver over the past few years. He has beaten MS in some amazing battles. The thing I want to add is that the channel 9 team in Aus were raving on about how the McLaren is such a superior car and that MS is such a genius for beating Mika due to this disadvantage. Absolute rubbish. I think most people will agree that the Ferrari and the McLaren are about as close as you get to having equal cars. The have their own strengths and weaknesses, but overall they are equal. This only demonstrates to me how little of the media coverage you can trust. I always make up my own mind about things by watching it happen and judging for myself. If you listen to the idiot commentators and the press, you will always be misled.

I have watched F1 for a long time and don't recall a passing manoeuver like Hakkinen's at Spa this year by anyone else never mind Schumacher.

Since you have been watching for a long time, you will no doubt recall some of the brilliant drives and passing moves of MS over the years. Or is it only the last brilliant passing move that counts ?;)

The message is that there isn't much to choose between the 2.

Agree !!!!

However, Donaldson and Watson are symptomatic of the problem with the bulk of the F1 media: they have crowned Schumacher as supreme, relative to Hakkinen, even though the evidence doesn't support this position. If Hakkinen wins, it is because Schumacher lost. If Schumacher wins, it is because he blew everyone else away. And of course, the media always proclaims, when Schumacher doesn't win, that the McLaren is really the best car. If you are Hakkinen, or anyone else for that matter , you can never elevate your status vis-a-vis Schumacher, because, according to the media, Schumacher always has an excuse when he loses that is not bestowed on any of the other drivers. None of this really matters, except that it shows a monumental lack of respect for all of the other competitors in the field. Hakkinen, the sport, the fans, and the rest of Schumacher's competitors are deserving of better.

Who cares what the media think. They are just trying to find something to say ..... anything. That is the very reason why I come to Atlas F1. Here, you can get an intelligent and informed perspective. You can present your own views and get feedback that is often well thought out; a kind of reality check. Indeed, I have been a staunch MS supporter for the past 6 years (since Ayrton died), yet I can certainly respect the reasoning behind others being Mika fans. I still think MS is better though

Unfortunately, you can also get the kind of behaviour seen above. I can only guess that people resort to this because they have nowhere else to vent their frustrations with the idiotic comments of the mass media. In a way its good 'cos it shows we are passionate about our F1. But lets hope it doesn't stop us enjoying our common passion.[p][Edited by Bex37 on 10-15-2000]

[ehiwario]

Originally posted by Bex37
Who cares what the media think. They are just trying to find something to say ..... anything. That is the very reason why I come to Atlas F1. Here, you can get an intelligent and informed perspective. You can present your own views and get feedback that is often well thought out; a kind of reality check. Indeed, I have been a staunch MS supporter for the past 6 years (since Ayrton died), yet I can certainly respect the reasoning behind others being Mika fans. I still think MS is better though

what the media thinks is very important .as the rest of us have never talked to the drivers or team members or anyone else, all we know is what we see on tv and the print media. even during the race we have to listen to the race commentary of biased commentators. the press is highly influential and anoyone who denys this has blinkers on. don't you respect Atlasf1. Don't you care what they think? of course you do. this Schumi is king #%@&* is getting really really stupid

[Hooster]

Schumie rules man. Without Schumie F1 would be pretty tame dontcha think? He is KING.

[rw shepherd]

Bex37
I agree with most of your post and must say that this is the kind of response I was intending to elicit. My posting was to show that the media i.e. Donaldson and Watson as examples, had gone overboard in their response to the euphoria of a combined Schumacher-Ferrari victory at the expense of proper regard for Hakkinen. That is it in a nutshell. I didn't like the start of the race particularly, but I agree that the start of an F1 race is a tricky business and the margins of acceptable behaviour are pushed to the absolute limit. In general, I have contempt for the media, however I am influenced just as I'm sure you'll agree you are to a certain degree by virtue of the fact that they are our contact with the sport and our source of information for the most part. There is no shame in losing the championship to the likes of Michael Schumacher but a driver of lesser skill and character than Schumacher could not have fought back to take the lead in the championship as Hakkinen did. I hope there is still a lot of good racing between the two in the future. As for passing manoeuvers, there have been many great ones over the years from drivers like Mansell, both Villeneuves, Schumacher, Hakkinen, and many others. I agree that they are all worthy of accolades. After the Sepang race, I will attempt to justify my assertion that with equal reliability, Hakkinen might have had the lead as proposed. I will try to offer all drivers the same treatment in making my case but bear in mind that my effort is only fairytale as the championship has already been won and I only make my case in the context of the media's overwhelming endorsement of Schumacher's alleged dominance in what, I believe, was a battle between equals. This is not the position taken on this matter by the media AND MANY SCHUMACHER FANS.

Lastly, I did not start the insults and gutter talk if you look at my original post. I knew it would be controversial but didn't expect the responses posted above. Would these guys be happy if everyone agreed on every subject? Does diversity of opinion warrant the responses from the distinguished members above? If certain members want to get down and dirty they will have to understand that I can match them and then some. I don't really prefer this to reasoned debate, though. Who would? However, taking a tongue lashing from someone in the Big Apple is not on my agenda. Australians responded in kind to American trash talk, particularly at the swimming venue, during the recent Olympics so I think you know what I mean.

In the meantime, thanks for the kind of response I was expecting to get and I hope to reasonably and respectfully debate other Formula One issues in the future.

[Hooster]

rw S. I really don't want you toiling away all this week to justify this statement "I think that Hakkinen has still been the dominant driver this year and would have won the title by 30 points or so if the McLaren had been as reliable as the Ferrari" so I did it for you! Don't say I am not nice.

Australia: Mika's car fails and MS wins with 10 points. Had Mika actually won and MS come in second Mika would have been leading with 4 after Oz. Mika lost 14 theoretical points here.

Brazil: Same situation, 14 points making a total of 28.

San Marino: Mika's car reliable.

British GP: Mika's car ok.

Spanish GP: Car ok.

European GP: Car ok.

Monaco: MS has a mechanical failure. Hakkinen comes in 6th for 1 point. Had MS won he would have beat MIka with 9 points. The difference here is 10 points. (I assume both drivers would have won their races barring mechanical failures. I feel this is fair to both, perhaps more fair to Mika). This reduces Mikas loss due to mechanical failures vs MS's loss to 18 points.

Canada: Car ok.

France: MS car fails but Mika gets 6 points. If MS had won he would have been 4 points ahead of Mika's number 2. The difference here is 10 points decreasing Mika's loss due to mech failures to a grand total of 8 points.

Austria: Car ok but accident for MS.

Hockenheim: Cars ok. MS accident.

Hungary: Cars ok.

Belgium: Cars ok.

Monza: Cars ok.

US: MH car fails losing a theoretical 14 points. The grand total now at 22 points.

Japan: Cars ok.

Schumacher is currently leading with 12 points in the drivers world championship. Let's for arguments sake say Mika wins at Sepang and Micheal comes in second cutting the difference to 8 points.

It's not so complicated is it? No need to spend the week calculating. Barring mechanical failures and assuming Mika wins in Sepang Mika would have been 14 points ahead of MS.

This is all rather acedemic though don't you think? You could just as well ask about what would have happend if Fissi and Zonta had not punted MS off and caused him to loose a theoretical 28 points to Mika. You could also say the failures Mika had happened because the engine was too highly tuned. If Ilmore had been more conservative and the engine had been less powerful Mika would most likely have finished more races but further down the order. In the final anylysis this season has been most unremarkable with regards to mechanical failures. Neither Ferrari nor Maclaren have been plauged by them to an unusual degree.

I still wonder where your 30 points come from. You can see I looked hard but they where nowhere to be found.

Schumie beat Mika fair and square. Thats really all there is to it.[p][Edited by Hooster on 10-16-2000]

[Bex37]

Originally posted by ehiwario
what the media thinks is very important .as the rest of us have never talked to the drivers or team members or anyone else, all we know is what we see on tv and the print media. even during the race we have to listen to the race commentary of biased commentators. the press is highly influential and anoyone who denys this has blinkers on. don't you respect Atlasf1. Don't you care what they think? of course you do. this Schumi is king #%@&* is getting really really stupid [/B]

Hey man, get a handle. It was a light hearted comment I made about Schumi being the best. You don't agree, no problem.

As for the media. You are right. What they think is important to the general public, they have a huge influence and they are very biased. As for AtlasF1, I am here because it is the most unbiased source of information that I know of, however, in many news items Atlas are just quoting other people's interviews. One has to be careful, even here!

The difference is, the people on this BB are not the general public. A good percentage are well informed F1 fans. We can make our own decisions about the start line incident at Japan without worrying about what Murray Walker says. We don't have to worry about the headline in XXXX magazine says that "Erja's baby forced Mika to dive up the inside" or "Jacques has nude photos of Schumi on his bedroom ceiling", as we should all be able to see that half of the stuff reported is just sensationalistic rubbish. My point was, let us make our own agenda and not just continue to be flamebaited by those dumb headlines and misquotes.

I have to agree that it is a concern that the general public are swayed by the sensationistic headlines. This makes it even more important for a forum like AtlasF1 BB to be a a more accurate and even reflection of the real events in F1. Where else can people go to see the pros and cons and see the headlines for what they really are. However, readers certainly can't do it here if they have to combat the aggressive attitude of some posters.

[theMot]

Time to get into the flame suit again!!!

ZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIIPPPPPPPP


rw shepherd, i wouldnt mess with Todd if i were you! He's a stornch ****! A few times hes gone up to Canada just to bash up Bruce. Then they hug and make up so its all good again.

Also Todd has 3 black belts or something apparently. STORNCH ****!

[rw shepherd]

Hooster
MS won fair and square, I agree, even if I questioned his behaviour in Japan. I certainly wasn't the Lone Ranger in doing so. I am not crushed that Hakkinen didn't defend. MS is a worthy champion. The essence of my original posting was the media response primarily. I have stated that clearly. I appreciate your efforts in attempting to make sense of my "30 point" figure. Just so you know, I have done the calculation for myself but I'll wait until the season is over before making my case. The calculations didn't take that long so don't worry about me "toiling all week". I'll be OK. But thanks for the effort. No mudslinging would have occurred if the tone of your original challenge to my posting had taken the tone of the last one. Have a great day!!!!!

[Hooster]

I am glad you feel that way rw s. I am also happy to hear you will not be toiling away all week and I look forward to seeing your calculations. I feel the way I did my calculations favoured Mika since I always assumed the man who had a mech failure would have won if his car had stayed in one piece. Since Mika had 3 failures and MS only 2 this is obvioulsly favourable for Mika. All I manged to come up with where 14 points in favour of Mika assuming a win in the event of a mech failure and assuming Mika wins in Sepang.

MS's start was breathtakingly aggressive. He was lucky he did not make contact with Mika. If he had he would be in such deep **** Herez would be looking like a picnic. I believe he did not break any rules by starting the way he did. I respect your right to disagree.

Have a good day too!!!

[Hooster]

Another way to calculate is to look at the results when the drivers actually finished races. This seems like a reasonable way to cancel out the effect of mechanical failures.

Mika has finished 13 races this year for a total of 86 points while MS has finished 12 for a total of 98. MS's average per finished race is therefore 8,2 while Mika's is 6,6. Need I say more?

[ehiwario]

Originally posted by Hooster
rw S. I really don't want you toiling away all this week to justify this statement "I think that Hakkinen has still been the dominant driver this year and would have won the title by 30 points or so if the McLaren had been as reliable as the Ferrari" so I did it for you! Don't say I am not nice.

Australia: Mika's car fails and MS wins with 10 points. Had Mika actually won and MS come in second Mika would have been leading with 4 after Oz. Mika lost 14 theoretical points here.

Brazil: Same situation, 14 points making a total of 28.

San Marino: Mika's car reliable.

British GP: Mika's car ok.

Spanish GP: Car ok.

European GP: Car ok.

Monaco: MS has a mechanical failure. Hakkinen comes in 6th for 1 point. Had MS won he would have beat MIka with 9 points. The difference here is 10 points. (I assume both drivers would have won their races barring mechanical failures. I feel this is fair to both, perhaps more fair to Mika). This reduces Mikas loss due to mechanical failures vs MS's loss to 18 points.

Canada: Car ok.

France: MS car fails but Mika gets 6 points. If MS had won he would have been 4 points ahead of Mika's number 2. The difference here is 10 points decreasing Mika's loss due to mech failures to a grand total of 8 points.

Austria: Car ok but accident for MS.

Hockenheim: Cars ok. MS accident.

Hungary: Cars ok.

Belgium: Cars ok.

Monza: Cars ok.

US: MH car fails losing a theoretical 14 points. The grand total now at 22 points.

Japan: Cars ok.

Schumacher is currently leading with 12 points in the drivers world championship. Let's for arguments sake say Mika wins at Sepang and Micheal comes in second cutting the difference to 8 points.

It's not so complicated is it? No need to spend the week calculating. Barring mechanical failures and assuming Mika wins in Sepang Mika would have been 14 points ahead of MS.

This is all rather acedemic though don't you think? You could just as well ask about what would have happend if Fissi and Zonta had not punted MS off and caused him to loose a theoretical 28 points to Mika. You could also say the failures Mika had happened because the engine was too highly tuned. If Ilmore had been more conservative and the engine had been less powerful Mika would most likely have finished more races but further down the order. In the final anylysis this season has been most unremarkable with regards to mechanical failures. Neither Ferrari nor Maclaren have been plauged by them to an unusual degree.

I still wonder where your 30 points come from. You can see I looked hard but they where nowhere to be found.

Schumie beat Mika fair and square. Thats really all there is to it.[p][Edited by Hooster on 10-16-2000]

bunch of "fuzzy" numbers in my opinion

[ehiwario]

i will do a fair and unbiased calculation and we will really see who the worthy champion is. but anyway, it is academic now :yawn:

[Hooster]

Your right ehiwario. Calculating what would have happened if, is always going to be fuzzy.

Schumacher has won the WDC regardless of any fuzzy calculations.

I just didn't like the insinuation that Mika would have won by 30 points had his car been as reliable as the Ferrari. I believe I managed to prove this wRONg.

[norfolk's tear]

Michaels statement is no suprise to me.
I think we've all seen the relationship between these two to be much better than MS-DH, MS-JV or for a short period MS-DC (when DC had changes for WC).

I think this is due to what Michaels also declares - Mika and Michaels stick to what theyre suppose to do: driving.

They've comprehended that there's not much advantage or benefit gained by talking (whining) all the time to the media instead of your own mechanics and the like.

[RedFever]

I am amazed how this thread obtained the opposite of what it was meant for.It was meant to show that regardless all the anti or pro bullshit so many post here, ultimately the two top drivers in F1 respect each other and actually are eager to confront each other against such strong opponents.

Just grow up and at least in this thread show a little sportmanship.

PS. The FIA rules state that changing direction at the start once is regular.Schumi's start was overly aggressive, but the fact stands that he changed direction once.Asking for a stop-and-go penalty is asking to BREAK the rules and artificially help a driver win.Mika was anyway ahead in the race and lost it.Don't look for excuses,learn from Mika and accept the defeat.It will make you a better man

[Mike_in_the_US]

What amazes me the most about the arguments for penalizing MS for the chop is that doing it did penalize MS. He was not in position to take the lead through turn 1 because he employed this ratehr dubious tactic and Mika was. The chop is just not a good idea, no other penalty requried provided it does not cause an accident.

MS won because of superior race strategy and wet weather driving, that's it. If the rain had not set in, or if Mika could equal Michael in the wet, then we would have been celebrating Mika's comeback in the WDC and drooling over the Showdown in Seypang. It did and he couldn't, scoreboard Michael.

Congrats to Michael for a race and season well run, the same to Mika. I hope they equal it next year but someone else wins. Let's go ... anybody but Mika and Michael!

[ehiwario]

Mika is the best of the driver's currently in F1

[Bex37]

Schumi is the best of the drivers currently in F1.

[rw shepherd]

Schumacher and Hakkinen are the best of the drivers currently in Formula One. Isn't it great that we are back to the point I was originally trying to make? Now, maybe someone should tell Donaldson and Watson. Also, to theMot, I actually have great respect for Todd because I believe him to be well educated, to write eloquent posts, and to know his stuff about Formula One. I had no problem with him thinking my premise was ridiculous, it's just that he could have done so in a more reasonable way. And, furthermore, I don't think Todd, any of the other members, or the adminsitrators charged with maintaining this site for all users, young and old, male and female, would appreciate the words you used in your very scholarly post. Clean it up!!!!! Anybody agree?

[Mrv]

Rw Shepard. You failed to understand what Watson and the other fellow was actually saying about Schumi being faster in the pitlane. They are absolutely correct. See the pit lane starts before and after the line. Schumi has always had a knack to get in and out quicker than any other drivers.

[baddog]

Mrv is correct rwshephard.. MS has a justified reputation for very fast in/out laps, and for maximising his speed in the 'dead' zone between the pitlane entry and the speed limit line and the converse in the exit, areas whee some drivers dont really focus as if they were still racing. this has allowed him to exploit excellent strategy which otherwise would have been useless and has won him many many races.

I think this is a very widely held view

Shaun

[Oho]

Ave !!!

Actually Michael being very fast on the pit lane is partly a team thing and Ferrari, oh well Nigle Stepney (sorry if butchered the name) paid the price at Barcelona. But yes Michael has the reputation of braking the latest for his pit box and speed regulated area at the entrance.

- Oho -

[HSJ]

I have not seen any of you put in any real effort for mathematically evaluation MS's and MH's DNF's. So here is my analysis of the situation (you might have seen it on another site):

The rules are as follows: a mechanical failure or other such incident is not counted as a driver error/failure. In case of accident (like Schumi's two first corner shunts) the blame is set at 50% for the driver (he could have driven a bit differently and avoided the shunt), which should be fair because then no one driver gets the blame any more than the other. Then I look at the most probable order of drivers finishing the race if the DNF's had not occured.

MH and MS and DNF's only:

Melbourne: MH fastest, wins the race. MS second or third (both Macs super fast in Melbourne, so third for MS was a possibility). Conclusion: MH gains 10, MS loses 4 or 6 (as opposed to how it turned out in real life).

Interlagos: MH had the pace to win the race with the one-stop strategy. Conclusion: MH gains 10, MS loses 4.

Monaco: MS clearly fastest. MH loses 1, MS gains 10.

Magny-Cours: MS fastest. MH loses 2 (would have finished 3rd instead), MS gains 10.

A1-ring: Macs superior. MH no change, MS gains 4 or 6, but because he had a shunt, he only gains 50% of that, i.e. 2 or 3 points.

Hockenheim: MS wins. MH loses 2 points (finishing 3rd), MH gains 10, but that is halved (50% rule again because of shunt). Conclusion: MH loses 2, MS gains 5.

Indy: MH fastest in conditions that prevailed for the most of the race, thus likeliest to win in the end. MH gains 10, MS loses 4.



So now we have, in conclusion, using plus and minus signs:

Melbourne: MH +10, MS -4 (or -6)
Interlagos: MH +10, MS -4
Monaco: MH -1, MS +10
Magny-Cours: MH -2, MS +10
A1-ring: MH +-0, MS +3 (or +2)
Hockenheim: MH -2, MS +5
Indy: MH +10, MS -4

Total: HM +25, MS +16 (max) or +13 (min)

So now that MH is 12 points behind (after Suzuka), the points should really stand at MH only 3 points behind or level with MS.

If you don't like my analysis (plenty of tifosi have not), then please explain how the rules should be changed to be more fair in your opinion.

[baddog]

It isnt so much the rules that are the problem (they are neatly thought out), its the bit that quietly falls outside the rules that spoils the party.

"Then I look at the most probable order of drivers finishing the race if the DNF's had not occured."

is the problem line. having mathematically eliminated the accident, you then make a value judgement, which may be very arguable. for instance, make three small adjustments as below (merely based on a different and very valid view)

melbourne. MS was the hottest driver all weekend, missing pole through DCs accident ending the session early. MS was likely to win the race. MH gains 6, MS loses 0

magny cours. MS passed on merit for lead. likely to stay 2nd. MH -2 MS +6

Indy, MH highly unlikely to pass MS for the lead or sustain his advantage, MH gains 6, MS loses 0

So now we have, in conclusion, using plus and minus signs:

Melbourne: MH +6, MS +0
Interlagos: MH +10, MS -4
Monaco: MH -1, MS +10
Magny-Cours: MH -2, MS +6
A1-ring: MH +-0, MS +3 (or +2)
Hockenheim: MH -2, MS +5
Indy: MH +6, MS +0

Total: HM 86 + 17 = 103 , MS 98 + 20 = 118 (max) or +19 (min)

lead = 15 points, championship over.

Now Im not pushing these figures as they are highly speculative and include my own biased views, though I dont think anyone could describe these three changes as outrageously unlikely.. but thats the point. until you eliminate the subjective element or at least reduce its impact by much more thn you have its really coming down to your own opinion.

Shaun

[RedFever]

this thread was not about silly statistics on DNFs but on the quality and respect for the two best drivers in Formula 1. WHo gives a damn who had more DNFs this season? what about then Schumi missing 6 races in 99? does it mean Mika's title in 99 was a steal??? cut it out, things balance each other out over time (unless you are Alesi or Herbert, who seem to have bad luck stuck on their back).

[IndyIan]

After watching the last CART race at surfer's paradise I totally agree with RedFever, Mika and Michael are the best two opponets to race each other. Both of them have so much skill, car control, experience, and an uncanny ability to know what each other will do. They avoid stupid accidents, Mika knew that Micheal would come across at the start because that's what makes sense for Michael to do.

Just watch some CART or F3000 races and you will see how good MS and MH are. You will be amazed by the dumb moves that you will see.

Which one is better? I would argue that each of them has their own skills. Mika can qualify on poll and pull off some amazing lap times when everything is optimal(dry, clean track conditions, good car setup) Michael is faster when things are not optimal, rain, cold tires, slippery pit enterances/exits, poor car setup or abused tires.

You pick which skills you like more and forget what the press says, you can watch the race and draw your own conclusions. I think most posters here know more about F1 that most of the press anyways.

[Mila]

sometimes the most difficult thing you do to someone is be nice. so, rw shepherd, I wonder if MH had this in the back of his mind during the post-race press conference at Suzuka?

Hooster, your (equitable) summation is revealing--without reliability problems for the two protagonists, MH would have sewn up the WDC at the end of Indy. of course, things didn't turn out this way. full credit goes to Ferrari for entering a reliable car for the early rounds, and for being on pace--even pacesetters--for the later races.

as for the media, rw shepherd, they ARE an insult to intelligence. more often than not, they seem to be keen on promoting rather than reporting.

lastly, here's hoping that it isn't the consensus of this BB that it's ok for a driver to run his competator off the road if he changes his line only once.

[rw shepherd]

I don't think I misunderstood Watson and Doanaldson at all. I was saving this for later, and it isn't exactly a secret, but Hakkinen has 8 fastest laps in the 16 races to date this year. Barrichello and Coulthard each have 3 and Schumacher has only 2. So now you're trying to tell me that Hakkinen is clearly fastest on the track but cannot negotiate the turns on the pitlane entry or exit as quickly as Schumacher. That doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. And furthermore, to suggest that Schumacher is more focussed on the pitlane than Hakkinen, who allegedly "lets up", well...I don't know!!!!! I think Schumacher's in lap-out lap expertise is related to going like stink on a light fuel load before coming in and his car control on relatively cold tires after going out.

As for your last post, Red Fever, I agree with you. As I've said before, the intent of my original post here was to promote the idea that the Schumacher-Hakkinen battle is between equals. There is widely held view amongst fans and the media that everything is not quite right in the world unless Schumacher is WDC and that the sport is somehow diminished when someone else is the champion. I, for one, am sick of it and was only tring to point out, that given the slightest change of circumstances this year, Hakkinen would be the 3-time champion. This is something that the Schumacher fans and the media need to be reminded of. As for Schumacher's championship, he earned it. I never suggested anything to the contrary.

[Piquet_1]

Firstly, if we're supposed to blindly "trust the media," then you're in many cases trusting people who are about as "close to the racing" and actually "talking to the drivers" as any of us. Anyone want to guess how many races that genious of motor racing Murray Walker attends? Hardly each one. Same goes for most commentators. And in fact, he and the BBC made this a secret for some time until the cat in the bag was released after Murray mentioned "being here in the studio." That they too have an opinion is fine - that they are somehow innately more knowledgeable than most of us is laughable. Listen to Derek Bell and then get back to me - some ten year olds better informed.

Secondly, it amuses me when people claim that Schumacher respects Hakkinen, or MS when admits it himself, because he doesn't get involved in media wars, or the cliched "mind games" like he did with the other rivals. I don't recall Hill saying anything negative at all about Schumacher during the 94 season, though I do remember the upstart who'd never won more than one race in a season prior to 94 exclaiming to anyone who'd listen that Hill, who'd given Prost a run at many races the previous year, wasn't a worthy competitor and wasn't anything more than a glorified number two.

[Bex37]

Originally posted by Mila
lastly, here's hoping that it isn't the consensus of this BB that it's ok for a driver to run his competator off the road if he changes his line only once.

Agree with most of your post, but I do not like the insinuation above if that is what it is.

It is not okay to run someone off the track who is beside you, even if you do change your line only once.

It is okay to be driving on a given line directly towards the edge of the track when there is no-one there. Whilst you are driving in this direction, if someone is desperate enough to stick the front wheel of their car next to your rear wheel at the point in time when there is less than one car width of track left next to you, that is their risk and their call. What about if the other car is further up beside you? Well you tell me? How far up do you have to be?

But more to the point, since MH was behind on the grid and MS started veering as soon as he started, there must have been some point in time that MH must have placed his front wheels next to MS's back wheels and taken the risk. It was MH's call to continue taking the risk and to keep on the throttle and to drive off into the pit lane exit to complete the pass. Maybe he should have taken the other side and avoided the risk. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that it is illegal to cross the lines that Mika crossed to pass MS. I was relieved when they didn't penalise him.

As I've said before, I thought it was good driving on all parts. Mika took a risk when he knew it would be a risk and came out on top. MS made it as difficult as possible within the rules and, once he saw Mika, stopped veering. Exciting stuff. All these decisions and skills happened in a few seconds which makes it a very impressive display of talent from both parties.

[man from martinlaakso]

Rw_shephard, Keke Rosberg has from time to time been a GP commentator in Finnish TV. He has several times confirmed, that MS indeed is slightly faster than MH, when it is about coming to the pits and entering from there. The difference is not huge, but it is there.

When we are talking about the first lap after the pit stop, there the difference between MS and all the other drivers is relatively big. MS can perhaps warm up his tyres better, and he surely can drive fast, when the grip is not yet good. Keke has admitted this (as MH's manager he has no intention to promote MS) and also Prost.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Piquet_1
Anyone want to guess how many races that genious of motor racing Murray Walker attends? Hardly each one. Same goes for most commentators. And in fact, he and the BBC made this a secret for some time until the cat in the bag was released after Murray mentioned "being here in the studio."

I believe this to be a complete fabrication. Murray and Martin attend ALL grand prix, as reasonably convincingly evidenced by martin actually walking down the grid before each race, before sharing a commentary box with murray.. unless of course that is merely a virtual reality trick the cunning old ITV are playing.

sheesh

Shaun

[JayWay]

Thats BS. Murray Walker has been in Montreal for all the Montreal GP's I can remember. Why would he attend at GP half way around the world, but not the ones in Europe. I have also seen pictures of Murray and Martin in the box.

Don't you remember at Sepang last year also, when Murray was talking about an overpass bridge blocking his view of the Ferrari pits so he couldn't see if the mechanics were coming out or not.

[Bex37]

Originally posted by Piquet_1
............ though I do remember the upstart who'd never won more than one race in a season prior to 94 exclaiming to anyone who'd listen that Hill, who'd given Prost a run at many races the previous year, wasn't a worthy competitor and wasn't anything more than a glorified number two.

But IMO, that is factual.