145 replies to this topic

[Gwynston]

According to this report about James Allen's new biography on Michael Schumacher:

According to Mosley, mitigating circumstances were missing in the case of Schumacher’s deliberate collisions with opponents later in his career. Schumacher got away with driving Damon Hill off the road in 1994, but if today’s systems had been in place then, Hill would have been awarded the championship.

Didn't the Atlas F1 Court find Schumacher 'not guilty' in this case? I can't seem to see any threads in that forum anymore.

Anyway, it just goes to show Schumacher got away with a dirty move that day in Adelaide, as most people have always thought.

[Ross Stonefeld]

They both drove like plonkers that day and that's why neither finished the race. But you're right the current FIA system would inevitably have found one of them guilty and punished them.

[Hacklerf]

No way! reopen the courts, it was Damon Hills fault for trying to get passed on that corner, Schumacher took the line, Hill if he had waited until the straight he would have been champion,

Schumacher NOT GUILTY

[wingwalker]

YAWN

[F1Fanatic.co.uk]

Ah, the Atlas F1 court. I'd forgotten about that. Here's the thread:

http://forums.autosp...&threadid=23482

[Risil]

No he wouldn't! Traction control is legal now! Boom boom.

[black magic]

just confirms what a dip max is.

supposedly f1 is run with permanent stewards to get away from the arbitary and dictatorial decision making in the past that had largely been based on the wishes of the fia president of the day.

perhaps max like to also remember the black flag for the british gp was ludicrous and so would have avoided the whole subsequent fiasco.

seriously, why do we bother with max's opinion.

[Oho]

Originally posted by black magic


perhaps max like to also remember the black flag for the british gp was ludicrous

Really, failure to serve a penalty is ludicrous basis for black flag? Mind you the stop and go penalty was deserved though the stewards made a mess delaying serving it. Drivers in general and Schumacher in particular had been warned about warm up lap antics but he paid no heed to the warnings, all in all he passed Hill almost half a dozen times over the two warm up laps.

[kar]

Originally posted by Gwynston
According to this report about James Allen's new biography on Michael Schumacher:

Didn't the Atlas F1 Court find Schumacher 'not guilty' in this case? I can't seem to see any threads in that forum anymore.

Anyway, it just goes to show Schumacher got away with a dirty move that day in Adelaide, as most people have always thought.

I'd dare say under modern rules Schumacher wouldn't have spent half the season on the bench due to ridiculous penalties and general FIA / steward incompetence.

Schumacher may or may not have cheated in Adelaide, but he sure as hell was damn well near cheated out of his title during the season itself.

In the end the right man won, however dubiously.

[Risil]

Originally posted by kar


I'd dare say under modern rules Schumacher wouldn't have spent half the season on the bench due to ridiculous penalties and general FIA / steward incompetence.

Schumacher may or may not have cheated in Adelaide, but he sure as hell was damn well near cheated out of his title during the season itself.

In the end the right man won, however dubiously.

Many of those penalties were administered as a kind of retribution for the numerous blatant but unproveable illegalities the Benetton team were running that year. It was a strange manner of doing so, and perhaps overly unfair on Schumacher, but those penalties did ultimately have a cause and a purpose.

[Oho]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
They both drove like plonkers that day and that's why neither finished the race. But you're right the current FIA system would inevitably have found one of them guilty and punished them.

I beg to differ, at least slightly. Hill in all likelihood did not see Schumacher's off track excursion and smack into the wall. For all he knew he may have thought Schumacher just had a minor cock up which presented Hill with one time chance to go for the lead. Schumacher's car I tend to believe was no longer race worthy after he grazed the wall, hence I tend to think he had motive, and opportunity and he really did not hesitate taking it.

[brunopascal]

Originally posted by Risil


Many of those penalties were administered as a kind of retribution for the numerous blatant but unproveable illegalities the Benetton team were running that year. It was a strange manner of doing so, and perhaps overly unfair on Schumacher, but those penalties did ultimately have a cause and a purpose.

According to Pat Symonds, there was nothing illegal about that car.

I think that the black flag at Silverstone was silly, and the 2-race ban he got was silly as well.

[lustigson]

Originally posted by Risil
No he wouldn't! Traction control is legal now! Boom boom.

Yes, he would, despite traction control being legal. Because with today's rules, Senna's Williams would probably have been safer still, so the Brazilian, surviving the Imola crash, would've at least given Schumacher a good run for his money.

[Oho]

Originally posted by brunopascal

According to Pat Symonds, there was nothing illegal about that car.

I think that the black flag at Silverstone was silly, and the 2-race ban he got was silly as well.

....and death rows are crowded by innocent victims of the system..

The Silverstone farce, followed by an almost identical one 4 years later, was gross FIA incompetence. If stewards had had the balls to do their job, in both cases Schumacher would have been handed a penalty in due time and in both cases stewards chickened out. Curiously essentially identical procedural cock up leading to black flagging in 94 handed Schumacher the victory in 98.

[Risil]

Originally posted by lustigson

Yes, he would, despite traction control being legal. Because with today's rules, Senna's Williams would probably have been safer still, so the Brazilian, surviving the Imola crash, would've at least given Schumacher a good run for his money.

Only to be disqualified for running a V10 engine. Had traction control etc. not been banned, Senna would probably have joined his good friend Nigel in the States, anyway.

[Risil]

Originally posted by brunopascal

According to Pat Symonds, there was nothing illegal about that car.

Bearing in mind he's still working for the same team, that perhaps is not too surprising. After all, it's only illegal when you get caught.

[brunopascal]

Originally posted by Oho


....and death rows are crowded by innocent victims of the system..

The Silverstone farce, followed by an almost identical one 4 years later, was gross FIA incompetence. If stewards had had the balls to do their job, in both cases Schumacher would have been handed a penalty in due time and in both cases stewards chickened out. Curiously essentially identical procedural cock up leading to black flagging in 94 handed Schumacher the victory in 98.

Agree that it was right to penalize him, but what I meant by silly was that the penalties were too harsh.
I should've clarified that.

[Oho]

Originally posted by brunopascal

Agree that it was right to penalize him, but what I meant by silly was that the penalties were too harsh.
I should've clarified that.

I don't think so, ignoring a black flag is a major offense, if not the biggest on track offense a driver can commit not far from it. Had FIA really felt like going for his hide they could have revoked his license, permanently even.

I don't know from whence the persistent misunderstanding that Schumacher was black flagged for warm up lap antics stems from, but it most certainly is the wrong interpretation. He was served the black flag because he failed to serve a stop and go penalty.

[Claudius]

Originally posted by Oho


....and death rows are crowded by innocent victims of the system..

The Silverstone farce, followed by an almost identical one 4 years later, was gross FIA incompetence. If stewards had had the balls to do their job, in both cases Schumacher would have been handed a penalty in due time and in both cases stewards chickened out. Curiously essentially identical procedural cock up leading to black flagging in 94 handed Schumacher the victory in 98.

You still can't let go of Silverstone 98 can you?
That's 9 years ago.

Whatever rocks your boat...

[Orin]

Schumacher should have lost the title in '94. There's no doubt that he crashed into Hill deliberately, such unsporting behaviour should not have gone unpunished. The FIA made amends in '97, but it was too little too late, they ought to have acted sooner and much more forcibly.

[Oho]

Originally posted by Claudius



You still can't let go of Silverstone 98 can you?
That's 9 years ago.

Whatever rocks your boat...

I promise not to bring it up when your corner refrains from bringing the 94 black flag incident up. But then again, as you so subtly put it, what ever rocks your boat. Does not take much to ruffle your feathers does it, after all I placed the blame on the FIA.

[lustigson]

Originally posted by Risil
Only to be disqualified for running a V10 engine.

D'oh!

[Claudius]

Originally posted by Oho


I promise not to bring it up when your corner refrains from bringing the 94 black flag incident up. But then again, as you so subtly put it, what ever rocks your boat. Does not take much to ruffle your feathers does it, after all I placed the blame on the FIA.

The two incidents being totally unrelated, besides the location, is one of the reasons I find this tedious.
And you geniounly can't let go of that race. It doesn't matter who you blame or don't, the reasons for it IMO is that you think that MS was an undeserved victor that day. Despite him driving a great and opportunistic race wich saw him grab victory in the end... (With luck with safety car and the stewards being late with their punishment, but still neither negated what was great driving from MS)

[Oho]

Originally posted by Claudius

It doesn't matter who you blame or don't, the reasons for it IMO is that you think that MS was an undeserved victor that day.

Because he was undeserved victor that day. He committed an offense which warranted a penalty, but chicken s*** stewards did not have the guts to give it.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Orin
Schumacher should have lost the title in '94. There's no doubt that he crashed into Hill deliberately, such unsporting behaviour should not have gone unpunished. The FIA made amends in '97, but it was too little too late, they ought to have acted sooner and much more forcibly.

I would like to ask you a question, in comparison, at Silverstone 1995, Hill went for a gap that was unrealistically not going to happen, and it ended both his and Schumi's race, now if Schumacher went for a gap that wasn't there realistically, would people give Schumi the benefit of the doubt? Hill at Monza 1995 also took Schumi out. Reverse the rolls, Schumi could never claim driver error under race pressure, yet Hill probabley could because he's not as good as a racer, I think Hill could of handled melbourne 1994 better, he doesn't think well at times in races.


Hill also moved 3 times the line on Schumi in Canada 1998, very dangerous on the straight, now imagine if that was a Senna or Schumi, it would of been more popular.



Schumacher gave the 1994 title to Senna spiritually in the press conference, Schumi knew the 1994 title wasn't going to be the title he would of liked it to have been had Senna been around. In this aspect, whether Hill or Schumacher won the title, the season was more like a a title fight to keep the show going because Senna had gone, the 1995 title was a miuch better played out title season, and Hill lost that properly and even clapped Schumi at times for his efforts.


We were all lucky Schumi chose the ferrari challenge in 1996, and viritually handed the championship to Hill in 1996, and Hill said this also, so either way
whatever you guys argue, the better driver with the better skills won, Hill's done dangerous driving so has Schumi at times, their both villians, but what this thread is about, is who is the more popular guy to hate, and that's Schumi, bravo, well done, have a good week.

[Zoe]

Isn't it all a matter of wouldashouldacoulda?

Under modern rules, any driver who took over his team mate's car during a race would be instantly disqualified. There goes Fangio.

And so on and so on.

Had Hill driven a normal warm-up lap in Silverstone in 1994, Schumacher wouldn't have overtaken him.

Had Schumacher not run off the road in Adelaide 1994, Hill would not have caught up to him in this fatal corner.

Had Alonso not behaved like a pr!ck in Hungary in 2007, he wouldn't have been penalised and Mac would have gotten constructor's point.

It is all a nice mental exercise, but that's all about it.

For Hill fans, Adelaide 2004 will always be a Schumacher fault; for Schumacher fans, it will always be an error by Hill.

For Alonso fans, Hungary 2007 will always be the fault of Hamilton, the FIA or whomever, and so on.

Zoe

[Orin]

Originally posted by SeanValen

I would like to ask you a question, in comparison, at Silverstone 1995, Hill went for a gap that was unrealistically not going to happen, and it ended both his and Schumi's race, now if Schumacher went for a gap that wasn't there realistically, would people give Schumi the benefit of the doubt? Hill at Monza 1995 also took Schumi out. Reverse the rolls, Schumi could never claim driver error under race pressure, yet Hill probabley could because he's not as good as a racer, I think Hill could of handled melbourne 1994 better, he doesn't think well at times in races.

They're completely different situations. In 1994 Schumacher had a terminally damaged car, he knew it and he knew that the only way to win the championship was to crash into Hill on that corner, he left the door wide open and then simply threw the car into Hill. Hill could have handled '94 better only if he'd realised the levels Schumacher would sink to in order to win the title, perhaps he held him in too high a regard.

As for dedicating the title to Senna (despite the obvious irony, given what he'd just done), nothing more than political bullshitting in the hope that it would distract people from the manner in which he'd achieved the title.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Orin



As for dedicating the title to Senna (despite the obvious irony, given what he'd just done), nothing more than political bullshitting in the hope that it would distract people from the manner in which he'd achieved the title.

Schumi visited Senna's grave in private back in 94, alot of accidents happened in 94, roland and karl as well, don't write off the effects that season had on what was a young Schumi at the time, he was used to driving and not worrying about fellow drivers getting killed, 1994 changed that.

[Oho]

Originally posted by SeanValen
he was used to driving and not worrying about fellow drivers getting killed, 1994 changed that.

No kidding. When did he forget that valuable lesson as some of more robust moves later in his career seem to point toward far more ruthless approach....

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Oho


later in his career..

Stick to 1994.

Now the thread is expanding into all sorts of things, for my part, I will back out respectfully.
It was good debating with you.

[HP]

Originally posted by Oho


Hill in all likelihood did not see Schumacher's off track excursion and smack into the wall.

Go watch the incident on a tape. Hill might not have seen MS smacking the wall, but that he was off-track certainly. Hill was then too eager to get past MS. Somewhat understandable, since it is easy to assume that MS would fully recover from his off. Despite MS in all likelihood closing the door on Hill, Hill demonstrated that he was often too opportunistic, and that was the wrong place to be opportunistic. It cost him a championship, as it appeared that MS car was terminally ill. Either by MS smackinbg the wall, or even before that, causing MS off in first place. Unfortunately I've never seen coverage how MS left the track

[Ross Stonefeld]

Hill's problem wasnt eagerness, but being timid. He initially jumps on the brakes to avoid Schumacher, but then decides to have a go at passing him. But having already slowed down, he no longer had the momentum to carry him through an overtake, so they both arrived at the same spot at about the same time at about the same speed.

[brakedistance]

Originally posted by Zoe
Isn't it all a matter of wouldashouldacoulda?

Under modern rules, any driver who took over his team mate's car during a race would be instantly disqualified. There goes Fangio.

And so on and so on.

Had Hill driven a normal warm-up lap in Silverstone in 1994, Schumacher wouldn't have overtaken him.

Had Schumacher not run off the road in Adelaide 1994, Hill would not have caught up to him in this fatal corner.

Had Alonso not behaved like a pr!ck in Hungary in 2007, he wouldn't have been penalised and Mac would have gotten constructor's point.

It is all a nice mental exercise, but that's all about it.

For Hill fans, Adelaide 2004 will always be a Schumacher fault; for Schumacher fans, it will always be an error by Hill.

For Alonso fans, Hungary 2007 will always be the fault of Hamilton, the FIA or whomever, and so on.

Zoe

Finally... some sense!

It will always be hard to accept bad steward decisions (I think Jerez '97 skewed the balance in favour of MS being unsportsmanlike and happy to cheat when the time is right). I still struggle with the ridiculous decision at Indy '03 which removed JPM from the championship and proboably single-handedly changed his, Williams' and BMW's futures at one stroke.

[karlth]

Video of the incident:

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Gwynston
According to this report about James Allen's new biography on Michael Schumacher:

Didn't the Atlas F1 Court find Schumacher 'not guilty' in this case? I can't seem to see any threads in that forum anymore.

Anyway, it just goes to show Schumacher got away with a dirty move that day in Adelaide, as most people have always thought.

Now if mr Mosley also would have told all of us that on similar grounds a certain Braso he adored and protected to the limit would have been stripped of a world title too, then I could have agreed with that decision.

Yes, MS was punished way too lightly for what he did in Adelaide.

But receiving a black flag because of driving ahead of Damon in the warm-up lap at Silverstone?
Is that an offence that somehow affected the race of Damon like for example happened later on in Adelaide? The actual race had not started yet and then you gonna penalize a driver for such a rediculous thing....

rediculous penalty because of a laughable incident, no penalty because of a serious offence,
equals out the situation in my point of view.

Henri

[as65p]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Hill's problem wasnt eagerness, but being timid. He initially jumps on the brakes to avoid Schumacher, but then decides to have a go at passing him. But having already slowed down, he no longer had the momentum to carry him through an overtake, so they both arrived at the same spot at about the same time at about the same speed.

There is a point. No doubt that MS drove into Hill, but the latter has partly himself to blame for being in that position in the first place. Hill could be blindingly fast sometimes but IMO throughout his career he lacked racecraft. He had two options as he came around that corner: just go for it without hesitation (as a Mansell or Senna would have done) or keep cool and wait for a safe spot to pass later (as a Prost would have done). But he tried a little bit of both and that was what gave MS the opportunity to take him out.

[Dragonfly]

If my granny had balls ...

For 13 years I've been watching every warm-up lap with special attention. There had been many cases when the pole sitter, deliberately or not, did not start right with the green light on. And being jumped by the man behind.
1994 was the only time this was found a reason for punishment. With a British driver on pole on a British track.
That says it all.

[Allin]

Schumacher in 1994 is debatable but Senna would surely lose the 1990 title.

[Gwynston]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter
But receiving a black flag because of driving ahead of Damon in the warm-up lap at Silverstone?
Is that an offence that somehow affected the race of Damon like for example happened later on in Adelaide? The actual race had not started yet and then you gonna penalize a driver for such a rediculous thing....

It's already been pointed out that in fact Schumacher got served with a Stop&Go pentaly for his antics on the warm-up lap. He only then got black flagged for ignoring the Stop&Go.

[Gwynston]

Originally posted by Dragonfly
For 13 years I've been watching every warm-up lap with special attention. There had been many cases when the pole sitter, deliberately or not, did not start right with the green light on. And being jumped by the man behind.
1994 was the only time this was found a reason for punishment. With a British driver on pole on a British track.
That says it all.

If I remember rightly, the difference is that Schumacher didn't concede the lead back again straight away, which usually happens if the man in front doesn't get off the line quick enough for the parade lap. Schumacher deliberately stayed in the lead for quite a few corners which was clearly showing the finger to the rule book. No one else ever did anything that blatant.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Gwynston

It's already been pointed out that in fact Schumacher got served with a Stop&Go pentaly for his antics on the warm-up lap. He only then got black flagged for ignoring the Stop&Go.

Yes I know.
But even that punishment was rediculous because it was a punishment for a `crime` that didn't affect the outcome of the race one way or another.
Not respecting the black flag etc. yes: punishment crrect.
But again, there should not have been a black flag to begin with because the first punishment that wasn't accepted was rediculous to begin with.
I know it is a rule. But there are more important things to set punishments for becasue of their effect on the race and race results.

henri

[Orin]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter

But again, there should not have been a black flag to begin with because the first punishment that wasn't accepted was rediculous to begin with.
I know it is a rule. But there are more important things to set punishments for becasue of their effect on the race and race results.

It's in the rules to ensure that the installation lap is safe and orderly. If you're going to have a rule you have to enforce it, otherwise all sorts of drivers would be swapping positions and generally behaving like idiots during the lap. What was more idiotic is that Schumacher felt he could flout the rule with impunity. He must have thought the stewards would be too weak to punish him, he was wrong.

[sensible]

Schumacher was the best driver in 94 by a hundred miles or more. The fact that he won the championship without the benefit of the best car while only being allowed to take part in 75% of the events says it all. What happened at Silverstone was a joke and what happened after was simply what the FIA most always does when one driver is running away with the championship

[Atreiu]

1994 was the worse season I ever followed and Hill winning the WDC would not have made it much better.


Schumacher deliberately crashing into Hill has already been discussed to death and no opinons will ever be changed.

[Henri Greuter]

Originally posted by Orin


It's in the rules to ensure that the installation lap is safe and orderly. If you're going to have a rule you have to enforce it, otherwise all sorts of drivers would be swapping positions and generally behaving like idiots during the lap. What was more idiotic is that Schumacher felt he could flout the rule with impunity. He must have thought the stewards would be too weak to punish him, he was wrong.

I am not doubting the point on an orderly warm up lap, I must and will give you that.
But in comparison to the fact that a number of race incidents that had much more effect on the race were left unpunished, Suzuka '90 the most unacceptable on up to that point (the point being Summer '94) , I felt at that time that the warm up lap incident was blown out of proportions and used as an excuse to spice up the season again. And Happily for FIA Benetton and Schue made it easier by ignoring that Stop&Go so they could throw him a black flag and then had something at last to nail him on properly.



Henri

[Gwynston]

Originally posted by sensible
Schumacher was the best driver in 94 by a hundred miles or more. The fact that he won the championship without the benefit of the best car while only being allowed to take part in 75% of the events says it all.

That's a common misconception. The Williams at the start of the season was not a match for the Benetton. Hence Schumacher winning the 1st 3 races of the year with Senna driving it. And as has been brought up, it is alledged that Benetton had certain illegal features that gave them performance benefits that season.

[Buttoneer]

Originally posted by sensible
Schumacher was the best driver in 94 by a hundred miles or more. The fact that he won the championship without the benefit of the best car while only being allowed to take part in 75% of the events says it all. What happened at Silverstone was a joke and what happened after was simply what the FIA most always does when one driver is running away with the championship

I can agree with you that Schumie was the best driver in 94 by a large margin once his main competitor was out of the way, with some fine performances. But it is rubbish to suggest that he did not benefit from having the best car.

[Orin]

Originally posted by Henri Greuter


I am not doubting the point on an orderly warm up lap, I must and will give you that.
But in comparison to the fact that a number of race incidents that had much more effect on the race were left unpunished, Suzuka '90 the most unacceptable on up to that point (the point being Summer '94) , I felt at that time that the warm up lap incident was blown out of proportions and used as an excuse to spice up the season again. And Happily for FIA Benetton and Schue made it easier by ignoring that Stop&Go so they could throw him a black flag and then had something at last to nail him on properly.



Henri

One good thing about FIA inconsistency is that each bad decision is not regarded as setting a precedent for the future: otherwise by now teams would probably be taking potshots each time the competition passed the pits. No doubt they have let many serious transgressions pass unpunished, but that should not leave the door open for less serious offences to go unpunished.

[angst]

Originally posted by brunopascal

According to Pat Symonds, there was nothing illegal about that car.

I think that the black flag at Silverstone was silly, and the 2-race ban he got was silly as well.

There was illegal software found on the car. But, regardless, there was plenty illegal about the removal of the filter on the refuelling equipment. Be interesting to work out how much time (and track position) that gained Schumacher through the year...

[Orin]

Originally posted by sensible
Schumacher was the best driver in 94 by a hundred miles or more. The fact that he won the championship without the benefit of the best car while only being allowed to take part in 75% of the events says it all. What happened at Silverstone was a joke and what happened after was simply what the FIA most always does when one driver is running away with the championship

It is irrelevant whether Schumacher was the best driver in '94, that is not the criteria by which the WDC is awarded. The ideal of 'natural justice' in this instance is as fallacious as it is misguided.