Shummacher Myths To Be Destroyed One By One...

[shields 0]

You can call me Steph, much easier than Kopite!

Different cars, granted. But we're talking different era's. How can you compare Senna against Massa. You can find similarities but they are completely incomparible.

Surely you agree with that?

And its nice to be able to get into a topic without there being any animosity.

I definitely agree with that (cant compare Senna against Massa).

The only think we can say for sure is that while Senna beat all his teammates (which included a 4 times WDC), Massa was beaten by all his teammates (exception being pehaps JV (?) and certainly Kimi in one of the years they had together)

This alone would mean that if I were to pick someone of the current grid to compare with Senna, it would certainly not be Massa...

But I would agree that it might be that the whole grid is better today and Senna would not have a chance even with Massa... This might be the case, although I still think it is rather stupid to compare two completely different eras: Senna drove without aids for his whole career, while todays competitiveness means very subtle mistakes do count...

The requirements on drivers skill changes through time... For instance, a driver good at setting up the car would be a waste of talent with modern telemetry... So how can someone choose a best driver in history?

Probably MS was one of the best of his era, alongside Mika, and lately Alonso... But to say more than this is simply not wise...

Agreed, Steph?

Cheers,

luiz

[Kopite Girl 0]

Thanks Luiz,

I think we understand each other! Senna and Massa was a bad pairing and the first two names to pop in my head!

Have a great evening.

[Autumnpuma 0]

Bah, no need to be so drastic. I enjoy a good boxing match. I accept the carnage inside the rules. I would not like watching a guy pulling out a knife, and I certainly don't enjoy when they let carnage go too far.

I like a gladiator's fight. I don't condone mere slaughtering. I can easily enjoy risky moves in F1 (is not a coincidence that Montreal with its unforgiving wall is my favorite track) without having to rejoice if old Rubinho gets squshed against a wall at full speed because of Schumi's antics.

And if none of this is what you meant, then...ermm...I'm still the best.

So there.

I don't think your view is out of date, I just think it's naively blood thirsty. The word naive might be taken as a bit of an insult and it's not intended that way, I just remember thinking this the last time you expressed this view; I would dearly like you to go to a motor race and experience first hand blood and guts spilled out on a track. Or maybe to hear the screams of a driver as he burns to death in his car. If in the process you saw a good motor race and left the circuit with that being the overriding feeling, then fair play to you, you got what you wanted. Thing is Mike, you are a rational, caring and sensitive human being, so I don't think for one minute you would feel good. It's just that it might take a situation like this to change your opinion that racing comes first over safety.

Jackie Stewart pushed for change because he knew it had to change. I don't think he was a lesser racer as a result. Same as me as a fan. I want hard wheel to wheel action with no quarter given. But I don't want blood. Please stop this attitude that somehow your desires for racing are different to ours.

I've seen my fair share of carnage and I don't rejoice in it nor do I want it to happen again. I've seen tragedy in motor racing as well, though not live but with tragedy do you really need to see it live to feel the impact?

So a question. Was Rubens injured? No. Schumacher's move wasn't as dire as people around these parts are making it. You all are discussing a 'what if' situation. In reality, what happened is what I consider part of racing. This is an inherently dangerous sport and I like that element of danger. It's something I've never been able to express very well, but without that bit of danger how do we rate these drivers? I enjoy watching courage and you need danger to see that courage. Was Mikey's move unsafe? Probably, but so too were many other moves that have gone down in racing history as great moments. The potential for tragedy exists anytime cars race.

I like to see a race where the drivers know they could get seriously injured or killed yet get into the car anyway. Those drivers come away from a race because of their superior skills and they win because of their superior courage. Make the cars as safe as they can and let them race. Now if you don't want what I've described then we do have different desires for racing. Judge me as you will, but there is the long and short of it.

[HandyNZL 1]

You can call me Steph, much easier than Kopite!

Different cars, granted. But we're talking different era's. How can you compare Senna against Massa. You can find similarities but they are completely incomparible.

Surely you agree with that?

And its nice to be able to get into a topic without there being any animosity.

Can we call you Kowpoke?

[HandyNZL 1]

I've seen my fair share of carnage and I don't rejoice in it nor do I want it to happen again. I've seen tragedy in motor racing as well, though not live but with tragedy do you really need to see it live to feel the impact?

So a question. Was Rubens injured? No. Schumacher's move wasn't as dire as people around these parts are making it. You all are discussing a 'what if' situation. In reality, what happened is what I consider part of racing. This is an inherently dangerous sport and I like that element of danger. It's something I've never been able to express very well, but without that bit of danger how do we rate these drivers? I enjoy watching courage and you need danger to see that courage. Was Mikey's move unsafe? Probably, but so too were many other moves that have gone down in racing history as great moments. The potential for tragedy exists anytime cars race.

I like to see a race where the drivers know they could get seriously injured or killed yet get into the car anyway. Those drivers come away from a race because of their superior skills and they win because of their superior courage. Make the cars as safe as they can and let them race. Now if you don't want what I've described then we do have different desires for racing. Judge me as you will, but there is the long and short of it.

But what is wrong is that the move should never have gotten to the point of a "what if" ever happening. Luck was a huge part of the "what if" not becoming "what was", and that, no matter how you want to spin it, is wrong. Luck should not play a part, as the drivers should be conscientious enough not to endanger others and then rely on lady luck allowing them to be eating breakfast the next morning.

[dribbler 6]

I've seen my fair share of carnage and I don't rejoice in it nor do I want it to happen again. I've seen tragedy in motor racing as well, though not live but with tragedy do you really need to see it live to feel the impact?

So a question. Was Rubens injured? No. Schumacher's move wasn't as dire as people around these parts are making it. You all are discussing a 'what if' situation. In reality, what happened is what I consider part of racing. This is an inherently dangerous sport and I like that element of danger. It's something I've never been able to express very well, but without that bit of danger how do we rate these drivers? I enjoy watching courage and you need danger to see that courage. Was Mikey's move unsafe? Probably, but so too were many other moves that have gone down in racing history as great moments. The potential for tragedy exists anytime cars race.

I like to see a race where the drivers know they could get seriously injured or killed yet get into the car anyway. Those drivers come away from a race because of their superior skills and they win because of their superior courage. Make the cars as safe as they can and let them race. Now if you don't want what I've described then we do have different desires for racing. Judge me as you will, but there is the long and short of it.

It's a fair point that you make. To try and encapsulate what you mean; you need an element of danger in a great overtake to make it great. It doesn't necessarily make you want to see something dangerous actually happen. From that point of view, I agree. I think if we all do a bit of soul searching, the chance of seeing a crash is one of the reasons we turn on the T.V. To deny that would be hypocritical. Removing any element of danger would make it normal and not so interesting.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Can we call you Kowpoke?

If I can call you gay.

[HandyNZL 1]

If I can call you gay.

Sutil is gay.

Not me.

Now where's my feather boa......

[Autumnpuma 0]

But what is wrong is that the move should never have gotten to the point of a "what if" ever happening. Luck was a huge part of the "what if" not becoming "what was", and that, no matter how you want to spin it, is wrong. Luck should not play a part, as the drivers should be conscientious enough not to endanger others and then rely on lady luck allowing them to be eating breakfast the next morning.

As Rubens' own quote after the race points out, Rubens had a choice. There was a definitive moment when he could have braked but he chose to make the move anyway. So who's at fault for this dangerous move again? Rubens took the choice any racer would; risk it and gain a place. I think better of him for it. The 'what if' question can be called right before any race. If you go down that path, the ultimate end will be to stop racing because the 'what ifs' all lead to danger of some sort.

[HandyNZL 1]

As Rubens' own quote after the race points out, Rubens had a choice. There was a definitive moment when he could have braked but he chose to make the move anyway. So who's at fault for this dangerous move again? Rubens took the choice any racer would; risk it and gain a place. I think better of him for it. The 'what if' question can be called right before any race. If you go down that path, the ultimate end will be to stop racing because the 'what ifs' all lead to danger of some sort.

We shall have to agree to disagree.

Rubens also said it was the worst thing he'd ever experienced in motorsport. He was far from happy. By the time he was alongside, i.e. making the pass, MS should have stopped heading right. He didn't and he forced RB off. It was amateurish. It was dangerous. It was stupid. It was stockcars (as in dirt speedway), not F1.

Show him the curb, sure. But not the wall.

[Kopite Girl 0]

What?

Look. Don't want to p*ss on anybody's parade, but Rubens committed to the move. If he really didn't want to, he'd have touched the brake. He may have said it was the worst moment...THEN DON'T ****ING DO IT! Don't say it was the overtaking move of your career and then say it was the worst moment of your life. If you go through with something, see it through. He obviously thought of the risk. He KNEW what he was getting into.

If Rubens had backed out of the move then NOBODY could blame him. It would be a completely different story and therefore Michael would pick up the jib, and rightly so. Its stupid to try to defend a move that was supported by the driver the move was made on. There is no argument. I'm sorry Craig, I like you lots, but in this instance you have nothing of substance.

Edit: spelling. At least I'm honest and don't say typo

[vermin 0]

Back to MS. Another bad come-back. Lance Armstrong, Glamour boys and when father time catches up...eish. Not saying that older drivers cant be quick, but MS was out for too long, had the best car in the world for 6-7 years and he is not used to fighting ALL the time during the race. And, maybe he thought he could walk on water.....

[Rainmaster 7]

Rubens committing to the move does not excuse Schumi's actions. If someone tries to walk past me in queue, and I try to stop them by pushing them back, them I'm the one who is still in the wrong. That example isn't even very good because Rubens wasn't doing something he shouldn't be doing, he was overtaking in a racing series. He has to expect to be given a hard time (or no presents as MS says) but he has also has the right not to be endangered whilst taking part in the race and doing his job. Schumacher can by all means squeeze him to the pitwall but in this example, he went too far (as seen by that excellent photo) and for too long (pit exit). If there had been an accident, especially if someone had been leaving the pits, that could've been a death or serious injury, and MS would probably be having some charges against him. Just because such a scenario didn't happen is not a reason to condone that kind of behaviour, that is the culture of thinking which suggests that safety measures only be taken after an accident which is stupid. The fact that nothing happened is only reason to be thankful that they were lucky on this occasion.

Lastly, just because most people here doesn't want to see stuff like that becoming the norm, doesn't mean they don't want competitive, hard racing. There are lots of degrees of difference between non-competitive, playful, letting people past style "racing", and what Schumacher did to Rubens. Just because I don't want the latter does not mean we are restricted to the former - there are plenty of steps in between and I'll take the one which is perhaps one or two lower than what MS did.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Rubens committing to the move does not excuse Schumi's actions. If someone tries to walk past me in queue, and I try to stop them by pushing them back, them I'm the one who is still in the wrong. That example isn't even very good because Rubens wasn't doing something he shouldn't be doing, he was overtaking in a racing series. He has to expect to be given a hard time (or no presents as MS says) but he has also has the right not to be endangered whilst taking part in the race and doing his job. Schumacher can by all means squeeze him to the pitwall but in this example, he went too far (as seen by that excellent photo) and for too long (pit exit). If there had been an accident, especially if someone had been leaving the pits, that could've been a death or serious injury, and MS would probably be having some charges against him. Just because such a scenario didn't happen is not a reason to condone that kind of behaviour, that is the culture of thinking which suggests that safety measures only be taken after an accident which is stupid. The fact that nothing happened is only reason to be thankful that they were lucky on this occasion.

Lastly, just because most people here doesn't want to see stuff like that becoming the norm, doesn't mean they don't want competitive, hard racing. There are lots of degrees of difference between non-competitive, playful, letting people past style "racing", and what Schumacher did to Rubens. Just because I don't want the latter does not mean we are restricted to the former - there are plenty of steps in between and I'll take the one which is perhaps one or two lower than what MS did.

Yes, it does excuse him Georgie. I'm sorry, thats the way it is. Like I said if Rubens REALLY DIDN'T want to go for it, he'd have pressed the brake and we'd all be sitting here having a real go at Michael for being a c#ck and he'd have no doubt been penalised for it.

But Rubens went for it. He knew exactly how much gap there was, obviously thought it was enough, and STILL kept to it with that last little squeeze.

I've read people saying about precision driving. Of course these guys know every mm of track. Its bumps. Which way the wind carries you or fights you. They know exactly how to get on the apex and off it again. F1 drivers are the absolute best precision drivers. They can obviously judge the distance to the wall as Rubens has now proven.

Ok. Lets say Rubens did go into the wall. He still committed to the move. Its still 50% his own fault.

Take my bike accidents. The first one was me being completely stupid and green. The second I had experience. I checked every angle and there was nothing at all, the witnesses all said the exact same thing. This crazy maniac came right over the roundabout I pulled away from, and hit me clean off into the air and over 15ft into a wall. I still cannot remember this. My bike boot was found in a bush 25ft away. I digress, but my point is the first one was my fault. The second was not.

If Rubens had have braked and Michael clipped the front wing then I'd agree with you.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Back to MS. Another bad come-back. Lance Armstrong, Glamour boys and when father time catches up...eish. Not saying that older drivers cant be quick, but MS was out for too long, had the best car in the world for 6-7 years and he is not used to fighting ALL the time during the race. And, maybe he thought he could walk on water.....

Hello. Are you South African?

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Take my bike accidents. The first one was me being completely stupid and green. The second I had experience. I checked every angle and there was nothing at all, the witnesses all said the exact same thing. This crazy maniac came right over the roundabout I pulled away from, and hit me clean off into the air and over 15ft into a wall. I still cannot remember this. My bike boot was found in a bush 25ft away. I digress, but my point is the first one was my fault. The second was not.

What's happening with this guy by the way... R u sueing or somethin? Did he pay for your hospital bills or what?

[Rainmaster 7]

Yes, it does excuse him Georgie. I'm sorry, thats the way it is. Like I said if Rubens REALLY DIDN'T want to go for it, he'd have pressed the brake and we'd all be sitting here having a real go at Michael for being a c#ck and he'd have no doubt been penalised for it.

But Rubens went for it. He knew exactly how much gap there was, obviously thought it was enough, and STILL kept to it with that last little squeeze.

I've read people saying about precision driving. Of course these guys know every mm of track. Its bumps. Which way the wind carries you or fights you. They know exactly how to get on the apex and off it again. F1 drivers are the absolute best precision drivers. They can obviously judge the distance to the wall as Rubens has now proven.

Ok. Lets say Rubens did go into the wall. He still committed to the move. Its still 50% his own fault.

Take my bike accidents. The first one was me being completely stupid and green. The second I had experience. I checked every angle and there was nothing at all, the witnesses all said the exact same thing. This crazy maniac came right over the roundabout I pulled away from, and hit me clean off into the air and over 15ft into a wall. I still cannot remember this. My bike boot was found in a bush 25ft away. I digress, but my point is the first one was my fault. The second was not.

If Rubens had have braked and Michael clipped the front wing then I'd agree with you.

It's not about knowing the track or not, or about precision or judgement. You can know a track better than anybody, have great precision, and still make a mistake or get involved in an accident due to the actions of someone else (as you demonstrated with your example). The problem with this incident was that there was no margin for error left by MS for either of them, and that isn't even accounting for external issues like someone leaving the pits. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It is not a 50/50 situation at all, that's why none of the commentators called it that way, why almost nobody other than Schumacher himself, Mercedes and Schumacher fans see it that way (and only a small portion of his fans seem to feel that way). It's why Schumi got penalised and not Rubens, and best of all, it's why Schumi half heartedly apologised (you can say it's due to PR pressure, but you can bet he wouldn't have done so if he didn't at least see the problem with his driving this time).

[BradSpeedMan 6]

There is no doubt that Senna's death has changed the way people remember him, it helps people to gloss over some of the less appealing traits. Maybe that's why Schumi is trying to kill himself?

:lol: classic!

[BradSpeedMan 6]

If you don't mind me saying, there's truth to what Maure is stating about contradictory views.

Senna was (lets just say it as it is) a dirty barsteward of a racing driver. He whined constantly. Yet people call him 'the God of F1'

There's a certain current F1 driver, who is constantly accused of being a whiner. By the same people who respect Senna no less. Come on guys, be fair.

The two are very similar. Whats the difference? Nothing much. I remember Senna being very petulant. I remember him in a press conference having a ten minute rant. I remember him knocking on Irvine's caravan door and punching his lights out. I remember Senna taking Prost out of the race. I recall him complaining over preferential treatment. I know this is the michael thread but it seems appropriate to put my piece of mind here.

So. Anyone for a game of spot the contradictions?

I see it quite differetly.......One had character (Senna) but the other one is an annoying bitch

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Maybe so. My views on F1 in specific and racing in general are quickly becoming outdated, hell, they may have been obsolete 10 years ago. What I know from long experience as being 'correct' is no longer thought to be correct. Safety first is the motto of the day. Battling on track has degenerated into a strange waltz with track stewards and rules. Forgotten is the simple notion that you get in the car and you race to win. You don't race to save other people's feelings, you don't race to give the other guy room. You race to win. I suppose my view is more cutthroat than is acceptable these days. All you gentle souls wanting a sterile, regulated procession puzzle me.

I keep coming back to this little corner of the web to chat with others that love racing, but fewer and fewer people relate to what I say and I'm often disputed more than agreed with. That is telling. Whether you're all right or I'm right is irrelevant. We aren't of like-minds anymore it seems.

and you were'nt a fan of Kimi? Thats just.... sad.......

[Kopite Girl 0]

It's not about knowing the track or not, or about precision or judgement. You can know a track better than anybody, have great precision, and still make a mistake or get involved in an accident due to the actions of someone else (as you demonstrated with your example). The problem with this incident was that there was no margin for error left by MS for either of them, and that isn't even accounting for external issues like someone leaving the pits. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. It is not a 50/50 situation at all, that's why none of the commentators called it that way, why almost nobody other than Schumacher himself, Mercedes and Schumacher fans see it that way (and only a small portion of his fans seem to feel that way). It's why Schumi got penalised and not Rubens, and best of all, it's why Schumi half heartedly apologised (you can say it's due to PR pressure, but you can bet he wouldn't have done so if he didn't at least see the problem with his driving this time).

George, all due respect- it has nothing to do whether or not you're a Schumacher fan or Mercedes fan, if it were Jenson Button (the best driver in F1), i'd still take the same chance.

I fail to see why people don't recognise that Rubens took responsibility for his own actions the moment he made the decision to go racing with his ex-teammate.

[Kopite Girl 0]

What's happening with this guy by the way... R u sueing or somethin? Did he pay for your hospital bills or what?

He went to jail. Drunk driving, he has a wife and kids and has destroyed their lives.

No hospital bills, all NHS. Insurance has been sorted, etc.

[Kopite Girl 0]

I see it quite differetly.......One had character (Senna) but the other one is an annoying bitch

The annoying bitch has more life in his little finger than icannotspeakwithpassioninmyvoicepassionexterminateEXTERMINATE Raikotron.

:P

[Rainmaster 7]

Since I'm bored and you earned it

George, all due respect- it has nothing to do whether or not you're a Schumacher fan or Mercedes fan, if it were Jenson Button (the best driver in F1), i'd still take the same chance.

I fail to see why people don't recognise that Rubens took responsibility for his own actions the moment he made the decision to go racing with his ex-teammate.

Ok, we'll talk about responsibility.

So, responsibility goes like this. Rubens is responsible for what he does with his car. He is responsible for where he drives it and how he drives it. Rubens is responsible for deciding to try and pass Schumacher, which is fine, because he was racing for position in a race. Rubens is responsible for choosing which side to pass on, which is fine, he is allowed to pass on either side (regardless of where MS would prefer him to pass). So far, so boring. When Rubens gets to a point side by side with Michael, Rubens is still responsible for driving his car in a safe way, which includes things like not swerving into Michael, not driving into the wall etc.

Similarly, as with Rubens, Schumi is responsible for driving his car in a safe way, and is responsible for where he puts his car and how he does that. Therefore only he is responsible for moving over on Barrichello. Why? Because only he is in control of his car. Rubens being there does mean the responsibility shifts or is diluted in any way. Michael's responsibility to drive his car in a reasonably safe way does not disappear because he has a competitor beside him (in fact, Schumi's responsibility actually becomes greater because he has a rival nearby, his responsibility extends to Rubens as a fellow driver and human being). Since they are competing, Schumi has the right to not simply let Rubens through, and so it is acceptable to squeeze him towards the edge of the track (whichever side RB had decided to pass on). The problem is that he went too far with it, which is still his responsibility because he was always in control of his vehicle. I'm not saying he intended to push Rubens into the wall to hurt him, but he did know what he was doing and his judgement was poor.

So, Rubens is never responsible for what Schumi does. Why? Because he is never in control of Schumacher's car. That is not to say that Rubens couldn't be responsible for an accident happening during the overtaking manoeuvre. For example, he could have gone for a disappearing gap and collided with Michael, then he would have been responsible for that. That didn't happen, there was enough room for him to make a legitimate pass. He could also have swerved into Michael whilst passing him, by intention or accident, and it would have been solely his responsibility (note: not Michael's, even though he was beside him). Rubens could have done many things which caused an accident and he would have been responsible for that accident (providing he was still in control, e.g. the tyre didn't deflate or something similar); as it stands though, Rubens didn't do anything wrong, he went for a legitimate pass and got pushed towards the pits. He didn't contribute in any way to the poor driving, that was Michael's doing and only his.

The point being: just because a driver decides to pass another driver, does not make them 50% responsible for the actions of the driver they are trying to pass. If Rubens had tried to pass as he did, and Michael had simply swerved directly into him causing a massive accident, would you still hold Rubens responsible? Would you say "well, Rubens had his car there, so therefore he must be 50% responsible"? I really hope not. Just because Schumi's actions were not as severe as that, does not mean that Rubens becomes 50% responsible for them.

The long, boring post is to try and explain the difference between being "responsible" for something and merely being "involved". If there had been an accident then Rubens would have been involved, and Michael would have been responsible.

If responsibility worked in the way you suggest it does, then it's likely you would have been found 50% responsible for your second bike accident, merely because you were on the roundabout, and the (massively flawed) logic would be "it was your choice to ride a bike on a public road (similar to: "Rubens committed to the pass"), you were on the roundabout (similar to: Rubens was in a race!), therefore you must be 50% responsible for what has happened". Thankfully that is not how responsibility works, when we are driving on a road we have a duty to drive reasonably and others have a duty to us, too. Just because F1 is a sport, does not mean a duty to drive reasonably safe doesn't exist. The fact those two were lucky enough not to have a twitching car, or someone leaving the pits, or hitting a bump, does not mean we should categorise it was "hard but fair" racing - it definitely wasn't, I've seen hard but fair racing and that wasn't it.

Final point, driving standards are bad enough on the road, they should not be tolerated in GP racing, to do so would be to undermine the good work of the FIA in bringing up the safety of the tracks, cars, medical assistance and everything else.

[HandyNZL 1]

What?

Look. Don't want to p*ss on anybody's parade, but Rubens committed to the move. If he really didn't want to, he'd have touched the brake. He may have said it was the worst moment...THEN DON'T ****ING DO IT! Don't say it was the overtaking move of your career and then say it was the worst moment of your life. If you go through with something, see it through. He obviously thought of the risk. He KNEW what he was getting into.

If Rubens had backed out of the move then NOBODY could blame him. It would be a completely different story and therefore Michael would pick up the jib, and rightly so. Its stupid to try to defend a move that was supported by the driver the move was made on. There is no argument. I'm sorry Craig, I like you lots, but in this instance you have nothing of substance.

Edit: spelling. At least I'm honest and don't say typo

No substance...no, I was the pair of cookies, and the prof was the cream.....he's my substance

And....lets be honest....you still use tipex/twink on you computer screen for your typo's don't ya? :P