70 replies to this topic

[janusa]

I was Reading" Michael Schumacher's Keys to Success" about six years ago and there it mentioned "I think" one of Alan Prost's reasons for retirement was that Formula 1 had changed from the time he entered F1 to his retirement and that he was the only one left of his generation.

My question has the same thing happened to Schumacher? Has F1 changed since his arrival?

Janusa

[BorderReiver]

I think over the course of any driver's career (assuming he has a long one) F1 changes. It is in a constant state of flux. Has it changed for the better since 1991? In some ways yes, in some ways no.

[swaction]

For sure F1 has changed, not only comercially, but also with technology and the like. The schu has proven that he can win under any circumsance.. eg:

* Active Ride
* Manual stick shift
* Slicks
* Wide cars
* Traction Control
* Grooved Slicks

The list goes on - Prost did a similar thing I reckon.

[janusa]

Originally posted by swaction
For sure F1 has changed, not only comercially, but also with technology and the like. The schu has proven that he can win under any circumsance.. eg:

* Active Ride
* Manual stick shift
* Slicks
* Wide cars
* Traction Control
* Grooved Slicks

The list goes on - Prost did a similar thing I reckon.

The book hinted that Prost retired because he felt his time had passed and that he did not know the new F1. I guess that is what I was trying to get at.

[WHITE]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
I think over the course of any driver's career (assuming he has a long one) F1 changes. It is in a constant state of flux. Has it changed for the better since 1991? In some ways yes, in some ways no.

My overall perception anyway is that it changed for the bad.

[LOTI]

Political correctness has taken over with all the associated interference.
Loti

[ensign14]

Yes it has. The Schumi Chop was basically legalized because the FIA did not have the balls to ban him for his odious on-track morals. And driving morals down to the lower formulae are in the gutter as a result.

[Bernd]

Originally posted by BorderReiver
Has it changed for the better since 1991? In some ways yes

I'm intrigued BR, give me a single positive?

[janusa]

Originally posted by ensign14
Yes it has. The Schumi Chop was basically legalized because the FIA did not have the balls to ban him for his odious on-track morals. And driving morals down to the lower formulae are in the gutter as a result.

But some people say Schumi was just following Senna and Prosts on track "morals" of 89

[OO7]

One change for the better I can think of is safety. In terms of racing its pretty much gone downhill.

Obi

[Dudley]

No more so than any other 15 year period you could name.

[themark]

Originally posted by Obi Offiah
One change for the better I can think of is safety. In terms of racing its pretty much gone downhill.

I agree. Safety is the only plus I can think of...

Eveything else is either unpalatable or a clear negative.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by janusa


But some people say Schumi was just following Senna and Prosts on track "morals" of 89

Prost did it once. Senna did indeed get away with near murder. But Schumacher turned it into an everyday part of a driver's arsenal.

[Cheap Wine Alesi]

Originally posted by janusa


But some people say Schumi was just following Senna and Prosts on track "morals" of 89

So its okay for me to become a serial killer, cause OJ got away with it?

[WACKO]

I have been wondering about this, particularly the question
'Did F1 change through Michael Schumacher''. The answer must be yes. I now have a fairly good answer to it.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by ensign14
Yes it has. The Schumi Chop was basically legalized because the FIA did not have the balls to ban him for his odious on-track morals. And driving morals down to the lower formulae are in the gutter as a result.

Given the amount of rules for racing, And given overtaking isn't easy, you should applaud MS for bring back some grit to race start proceedings, at least the Schumi chop is fair, you move once across the line, the starts are important to defend position, and alot of people find it entertaining and it makes people talk, good on MS I say!

The fact that Michael's detractors dissed the move in 2000 when Michael resurrected the move consistently is because everyone is on such a tight leash with the fia rules on some things. Suddenly later DC used it in a race after complaining about it, and that was that, you'll find very few drivers, even Trulli last year in behrain when Michael did the chop, had no problem with it, other drivers can do it, and you wonder why they don't, perhaps they don't want to take the risk, but you gotta push the limits in this sport, Michael still makes a difference at times in the way he attacks the pitlane, other drivers simply don't always maximise in this area, and you ask yourself why.

You can't move 3 times the line rule was something drivers came up with, didn't stop Damon Hill from doing it on Schumi in Canada 1998, on a high speed straight, very dangerous, but Schumi got past Hill anyway, that's racing until it goes wrong, Llucky Hill was racing Schumi and not someone else perhaps.


Michael has a very good knowlege of the rules, it's typical for him to resurrect the chop move back in 2000, he was the one to resurrect it, and certainly he wasn't the only one who chose to use it, DC did later as I said before, after complaining about it, with the obession of safety since 1994, perhaps Michael reminds everyone that racing isn't about having a cup of tea on a Sunday .


Television, cameras, the public eye, your under the spotlight, anything out of the ordinary seems dangerous.

[Jerome]

Well, my answer is...no

The changes in regulations, race tactics are of much greater influence on F1 than the racers themselves. I think Schumacher would have been just as good in the full tanks area, perhaps would have won perhaps a few less WC's.
Perhaps in the earlier days he could not have controlled his team as well, as could have been less picky about teammates, but to be honest: in all the years that he was dominant, there was not one driver who could have beaten him in the same team, except perhaps Mika Hakkinen, but he did not want to be in the same team. Only with the emergence of Alonso and Raikkonen there could have been a possibility...
So Schumacher did not change the sport. He was a sign of the times, not the one who made the times turn.

[Orin]

It's interesting how few have adopted the Schumacher chop. Alonso and Webber seem the two most agressive defenders out there, but even they're not at Schumacher's level and the rest all follow the standard means of defence exemplified by Trulli in 2005 via defensive lines and early apexes. With the recent changes to marshalling the FIA could use this opportunity to clamp down on some of the worst examples dangerous driving and consign the Senna / Schumacher sporting code to a chapter in the sport's past.

[ensign14]

You can scarcely watch a race at any level without seeing the chop being practised. And Alonso has certainly used it previously, although I cannot remember him using it in the past 3 years or so.

[as65p]

There is an interesting piece on german f1total.com from Niki Lauda.

Quick translation:
"We drove into eachother all the time, out of pure brutality, just to win. Someone would be brake-tested, he flys off the road, and afterwards you would claim not to have seen him. Today that isn't possible anymore because you can basically watch every steering move on TV. The drivers are controlled to an extent that they can't really drive anymore the way it's natural to them."

He already said something similar a few years ago. And remember in his time F1 racing was still dangerous!

Frankly IMO all these claims that the racing was fairer in earlier years seem blurred by nostalgica.
Sure, some stunts the drivers get away with today where not possible, simply because they know they would likely get killed. But the competitive instinct was always the same in every era, I believe.

[ensign14]

I don't with to accuse Niki of talking bollocks, but I can't think of any other way to finish this sentence.

[Orin]

What Lauda says doesn't make sense, why then were Prost, Rosberg, Stewart, et al. so incensed by Senna's behaviour? Why did Hill say that he saw the change in junior formulae when Senna's tactics became almost routine? I've got recordings of the '77 and '84 championships and I can't remember seeing any dirty driving on Lauda's part.

[as65p]

Originally posted by ensign14
I don't with to accuse Niki of talking bollocks, but I can't think of any other way to finish this sentence.

Sure, it's only one mans view on the subject, but still somewhat qualified, don't you think?

[as65p]

Originally posted by Orin
What Lauda says doesn't make sense, why then were Prost, Rosberg, Stewart, et al. so incensed by Senna's behaviour? Why did Hill say that he saw the change in junior formulae when Senna's tactics became almost routine? I've got recordings of the '77 and '84 championships and I can't remember seeing any dirty driving on Lauda's part.

Well, in Prost and Hills case, probably because they where beaten by faster drivers with bigger balls?

Edit: on your last sentence: that's what Lauda is talking of, you did not see them at that time ;).

[baddog]

Originally posted by ensign14
Yes it has. The Schumi Chop was basically legalized because the FIA did not have the balls to ban him for his odious on-track morals. And driving morals down to the lower formulae are in the gutter as a result.

Driving morals, in terms of chops, black and shoves are in fact infinitely more clean now than in 1991-3

[SeanValen]

The tv camera operations have changed alot from 70s to say now, and so has the viewership for f1, everything is documented so well, in comparison to say the 70s and the stuff Lauda is talking about, there's probabley enough ammo in there for forums in the day to shout out about, if internet existed for f1 fans back then, times have changed. Given driver fatality took the news the most, perhaps everyone was just glad they raced and survived. Now it's a given f1 cars are in a much safer era, attention to moves to other areas, no fan or tv camera or picture is far off from spotting behaviour on track, there's replays on your tube etc etc A whole different era for observing f1.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by as65p


Sure, it's only one mans view on the subject, but still somewhat qualified, don't you think?

Until he gives concrete examples, no.

There were wild guys like Regazzoni and Brambilla. And Chris Lambert's father tried to get Regga banned after Chris was killed. But save for Farina there's never been accusations that they did it deliberately.

[as65p]

Originally posted by ensign14
Until he gives concrete examples, no.

I suspect if he would do that, you would still not believe him, but question those examples instead, right?

Anyway, everyone is free to believe what he wants to believe. If, in this case, a three times champion gives his view on a subject, especially if can't see any "hidden agenda" at all, I tend to give it a tiny bit more value than a forium posters view. Sorry

[ensign14]

Originally posted by as65p


I suspect if he would do that, you would still not believe him, but question those examples instead, right?

Chances are there would be some corroborative evidence somewhere.

[HBoss]

Originally posted by Bernd


I'm intrigued BR, give me a single positive?

The cars are safer.

[HBoss]

Originally posted by swaction
For sure F1 has changed, not only comercially, but also with technology and the like. The schu has proven that he can win under any circumsance.. eg:

* Active Ride
* Manual stick shift
* Slicks
* Wide cars
* Traction Control
* Grooved Slicks

The list goes on - Prost did a similar thing I reckon.

Piquet too.
The cars changed in nearly every way imaginable from 1980 to 1991 and he could win races and titles through the so many changes. He wasn't as dominant as Schumacher, or consistent as Prost, but I don't think he owes anything to anyone in regards to winning in different circumstances.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by as65p
There is an interesting piece on german f1total.com from Niki Lauda.

Quick translation:
"We drove into eachother all the time, out of pure brutality, just to win. Someone would be brake-tested, he flys off the road, and afterwards you would claim not to have seen him. Today that isn't possible anymore because you can basically watch every steering move on TV. The drivers are controlled to an extent that they can't really drive anymore the way it's natural to them."

He already said something similar a few years ago. And remember in his time F1 racing was still dangerous!

Frankly IMO all these claims that the racing was fairer in earlier years seem blurred by nostalgica.
Sure, some stunts the drivers get away with today where not possible, simply because they know they would likely get killed. But the competitive instinct was always the same in every era, I believe.

As I much I genuinely like dear ol' Super Rat, he is engaging in some creative revisionism because if you were to take a hard view of the era in which he drove, you would find precious little of the "driving into each all the time" sort of thing. Ditto with the brake-testing. Did it happen? Of course it did, but it was scarcely the everyday occurrance that is being implied. "Problem" drivers happen in each and every era, but in the past they were generally dealt with by the other drivers as well as those running things.

Reggazoni mended his ways after severe pressure was applied by his fellow drivers. That he was not banned after the Lambert incident remains a question mark even today. However, he did get the message and mended his ways -- although he did have the occasional relapse.

It is accurate to say that some drivers during the Lauda era were not adverse providing a slight nudge once in awhile to let the other driver know that they were there. Scarcely the "bumping & thumping" that is being read into the Lauda remarks. There were those who in the press who were not above pointing fingers and naming names of those they thought guilty of "dodgy" driving. It is interesting to note that Lauda was rarely included in this group.

Your remark concerning "nostalgia" is quite misplaced. Things were quite different in the 1970s and into the 1980s, not better, not worse, simply different. Consequences for simple mistakes were often brutal, much less those for inducing deliberate mayhem. Hard to find many instances of mayhem that was the result of a deliberate action due to "malice aforethought," if you will.

However, as a mere forum poster, what the hell do I know, correct?

[as65p]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps


Your remark concerning "nostalgia" is quite misplaced. Things were quite different in the 1970s and into the 1980s, not better, not worse, simply different. Consequences for simple mistakes were often brutal, much less those for inducing deliberate mayhem. Hard to find many instances of mayhem that was the result of a deliberate action due to "malice aforethought," if you will.

However, as a mere forum poster, what the hell do I know, correct?

I'm not disputing what you said above. I was just trying to point out that it wasn't all friendly stuff among good old pals back then (as some truly revisionist nostalgics would like to make us believe).

And I especially agree with "not better, not worse, simply different".

Isn't it obvious that I include myself when talking about "forum posters" in contrast to a World champion? Don't you agree that his opinion may likely have more weight than ours?

[lukywill]

Originally posted by HDonaldCapps




Reggazoni

it´s regazzoni.

[HDonaldCapps]

Originally posted by lukywill
it´s regazzoni.

Sorry, I will use a small "r" next time...

[lukywill]

thanks.

[Powersteer]

Race ethics has spiralled really low since Senna start crashing into people. Schumacher is the icing on the cake, blocking, crashing and artificially losing control. Probably creepen into MotoGP when Pedrosa stupidity in controlling his patience failed and drop his team mate to eat sand. Driving technique has become sharper though.

[tkulla]

I think Shumi's rep has been hurt by his era, in that the refueling sprint race format (in which he was clearly the master) is just not as exciting as the full tanks era where you had to pass on the track instead of the pits. Perhaps his results (wins, championships) wouldn't have been as awesome with those rules, but the wins themselves would have much more dramatic value in my eyes.

[HBoss]

Originally posted by tkulla
I think Shumi's rep has been hurt by his era, in that the refueling sprint race format (in which he was clearly the master) is just not as exciting as the full tanks era where you had to pass on the track instead of the pits. Perhaps his results (wins, championships) wouldn't have been as awesome with those rules, but the wins themselves would have much more dramatic value in my eyes.

Schumacher only drove some races in 1991 plus the 1992, 1993 and 2005 seasons without this pure or complete sprint racing format. And his results were nowhere near his career averages.

If that was down to him, or to his cars, or to both, or many other related factors which can't easily be singled out, I guess we'll never really know.

[ensign14]

Originally posted by HBoss


Schumacher only drove some races in 1991 plus the 1992, 1993 and 2005 seasons without this pure or complete sprint racing format. And his results were nowhere near his career averages.

Although in those years he beat his team-mates generally fairly easily and in '92-3 was pretty much at or around the sharp end (a sort of BAR/Honda-type position). It is our loss that we did not get to see him display the full panoply of driving skills and are not likely to see it in the future from his successors.

[BorderReiver]

Originally posted by Bernd


I'm intrigued BR, give me a single positive?

Vast leaps forward in terms of safety?

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by Cheap Wine Alesi


So its okay for me to become a serial killer, cause OJ got away with it?

Since when has 'the chop' been illegal?

[Jordan191]

Originally posted by baddog


Driving morals, in terms of chops, black and shoves are in fact infinitely more clean now than in 1991-3

facts in the face of mindless Schumacher bashing? lol baddog you have to know by now it's useless.

[ensign14]

That's not a fact, that's opinion.

And indeed they have reduced by a Senna-sized number since 1993, but that's offset IMO by others.

[lukywill]

after brasil i will open here a thread about our relief. a danger will come out and go for the wildtherness of troglodit time.

[Umpire]

In answer to the original question, yes it has. In some respects for the better, in some respects for the worst.

MS was competitive throughout his years, and this is I believe a tribute to his abilities.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by as65p
There is an interesting piece on german f1total.com from Niki Lauda.

Quick translation:
"We drove into eachother all the time, out of pure brutality, just to win. Someone would be brake-tested, he flys off the road, and afterwards you would claim not to have seen him. Today that isn't possible anymore because you can basically watch every steering move on TV. The drivers are controlled to an extent that they can't really drive anymore the way it's natural to them."

He already said something similar a few years ago. And remember in his time F1 racing was still dangerous!

Frankly IMO all these claims that the racing was fairer in earlier years seem blurred by nostalgica.
Sure, some stunts the drivers get away with today where not possible, simply because they know they would likely get killed. But the competitive instinct was always the same in every era, I believe.

Lauda is right. F1 racing was much closer and tougher in his days.

I remember very well Laudas fight against Alain Prost in Zandvoort 1985.
Prost was his teammate, he was a title contender while Lauda was out of the title race and already had announced his retirement.

Still both of them were fighting wheel to wheel for the victory, and nobody criticized Lauda after the race for not supporting Prost. Au contraire, everybody was amazed about that great duel.


Nowadays the grid is full of whiners.

[janusa]

Originally posted by giacomo
Lauda is right. F1 racing was much closer and tougher in his days.

I remember very well Laudas fight against Alain Prost in Zandvoort 1985.
Prost was his teammate, he was a title contender while Lauda was out of the title race and already had announced his retirement.

Still both of them were fighting wheel to wheel for the victory, and nobody criticized Lauda after the race for not supporting Prost. Au contraire, everybody was amazed about that great duel.


Nowadays the grid is full of whiners.

I am curious however does the Internet and 24 hour news have to do with this problem? During the last GP Speed TV commentators said that Michael's actions in Austria 2002 were common in the Prost and Senna Era's. But a lot of the bad press from Austria 2002 came from Journalists who did not cover motorsports on a regualar bases. Again this is not my opinion but the commentator's of Speed But does Austria 2002 singal a time change or a change in racing ethics or norms?

Janusa

[giacomo]

Austria 2002 has nothing to do with Laudas comment concerning tough racing in his era - Austria 2002 was a case of blatant team orders.
Also the rivalry Prost/Senna has nothing to do with Austria 2002 and blatant team orders.

Apparently those Speed TV commentators are such journalists who don't cover motorsport on a regular basis...

[ensign14]

Originally posted by janusa
Again this is not my opinion but the commentator's of Speed But does Austria 2002 singal a time change or a change in racing ethics or norms?

Well, given that team orders can be traced back to the Grand Prix de l'ACF in 1908...and probably before...no.