Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shields

Shummacher Myths To Be Destroyed One By One...

Recommended Posts


Since I'm bored and you earned it :P..insert well thought long post from George

Ok!

At which point did I say Rubens was responsible for Michael's actions?

I'm not arguing the fact the initial Schumacher move was provocative to say the least.

What I'm saying is that Rubens is responsible for himself. He chose to respond to Schumacher and therefore put himself in danger.

My accident as I explained before had witnesses. There was NO sign of the drunk driver anywhere in sight until he came screeching over the roundabout and into me. I was unlucky. Nobody saw him until I was already on my way. But Sh#t happens!

So. What I'm saying is while I anticipate whats happening in front, behind and both sides of me, the road was clear for me to pull away. Nobody saw it coming. Just unfortunate.

Rubens could see what was coming and he still went for it. I'm not saying its his fault for the whole thing. But for his part he should be held accountable.

And to clear the matter up, I do think that Schumacher's move was the catalyst. But if the other participant could see whats coming then they should be held responsible -*for their part*-

Tell me. Is my logic still massively flawed? No! Its not logic, its fact.

Anyway Georgie, I'll compromise and save you replying. Agree to disagree. Now lets chill with some Richard Ashcroft and Elbow. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK this time we can agree to disagree! I just wish there was something more interesting to talk about, this F1 break is no good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

That way there would be no overtaking in F1. I mean absolutely no overtaking.

By pressing the brake hard, any driver trying to overtake would lose contact and spend another lap trying regain the condition in which the pass would be minimally possible.... Just to get another door close and so on...

The hunter must not be put in a condition where his only alternative is to press the brake hard. If not for for the excitement, at least for safety reasons: a brake in which one of the wheels is on a dirty area is always subject to lose a little control of the car, specially if one wheel blocks before the other... Small imbalance might lead to changes in direction, which, when the cars are close (as they were) could lead to a big accident.

Not to mention a possibility for interlock the wheels...

And frankly, it does not require a lot of skills and drivers talent to close the door the way it was done...

It would be very easy to avoid overtakings if we considered legal and correct what MS did, thinking that Rubens should not be allowed to try. Everyone, even the worst driver in the grid would be succeeding in keeping the position this way...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That way there would be no overtaking in F1. I mean absolutely no overtaking.

By pressing the brake hard, any driver trying to overtake would lose contact and spend another lap trying regain the condition in which the pass would be minimally possible.... Just to get another door close and so on...

The hunter must not be put in a condition where his only alternative is to press the brake hard. If not for for the excitement, at least for safety reasons: a brake in which one of the wheels is on a dirty area is always subject to lose a little control of the car, specially if one wheel blocks before the other... Small imbalance might lead to changes in direction, which, when the cars are close (as they were) could lead to a big accident.

Not to mention a possibility for interlock the wheels...

And frankly, it does not require a lot of skills and drivers talent to close the door the way it was done...

It would be very easy to avoid overtakings if we considered legal and correct what MS did, thinking that Rubens should not be allowed to try. Everyone, even the worst driver in the grid would be succeeding in keeping the position this way...

If I'm not mistaken, we are discussing motor racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

:P :P

I'm glad you see my point.... yes, even Kimi has more character than whathisnameidiot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I *was* a fan of Kimi until he made so many stupid errors that cost him so much that I couldn't really get behind him.

Steph, I'm 100% with your arguments here. You've nailed what I was trying to say. I think the prof is losing the plot amidst all those words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I *was* a fan of Kimi until he made so many stupid errors that cost him so much that I couldn't really get behind him.

Steph, I'm 100% with your arguments here. You've nailed what I was trying to say. I think the prof is losing the plot amidst all those words.

I'll resist the temptation to sum you up in one word. Besides, I didn't realise we were on Twitter.

I guess you also think almost every professional and paid F1 observer (be it journalists, commentators etc) have also lost "the plot" (or to describe it more accurately: your plot) simply because they don't agree with you that Schumacher's move was fine and dandy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That way there would be no overtaking in F1. I mean absolutely no overtaking.

By pressing the brake hard, any driver trying to overtake would lose contact and spend another lap trying regain the condition in which the pass would be minimally possible.... Just to get another door close and so on...

The hunter must not be put in a condition where his only alternative is to press the brake hard. If not for for the excitement, at least for safety reasons: a brake in which one of the wheels is on a dirty area is always subject to lose a little control of the car, specially if one wheel blocks before the other... Small imbalance might lead to changes in direction, which, when the cars are close (as they were) could lead to a big accident.

Not to mention a possibility for interlock the wheels...

And frankly, it does not require a lot of skills and drivers talent to close the door the way it was done...

It would be very easy to avoid overtakings if we considered legal and correct what MS did, thinking that Rubens should not be allowed to try. Everyone, even the worst driver in the grid would be succeeding in keeping the position this way...

No disrespect. I got to 'by pressing the brake hard' and hit reply.

If you read my earlier statements, I said touched the brake.

I said this because a touch can decrease a lot of speed in an F1 car.

And because Rubens intended to stick with his pass, he knew all he had to do was touch it if he didn't want to.

Again, no disrespect; but don't give me all the garb about losing potential places, etc. A touch of his brake would have enabled him to slipstream to a safe point on the track, sell Michael a dummy and be on his way.

But he chose to stick with his move, therefore responsibility FOR HIMSELF IS HIS OWN.

-----

Mike - thanks. Its not easy being right all the time is it? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that a driver who attempts to overtake another, should have to choose between completing the pass or touching his brake to avoid being squeezed into a concrete wall is completely ridiculous and is not at all in the spirit of racing (are you there, puma?). Clearly, anyone without some kind of bias could see that this type of argument is just a last resort in defending MS' actions.

A better defence would be to say that you thought Schumacher's defending was hard but fair, that is a reasonable viewpoint because everybody makes a different interpretation of a subjective event, rather than coming up with some strange idea that Rubens going for an overtake allows Schumacher to do whatever he likes (essentially shifting the focus from Michael, a nice diversionary tactic).

Anyway, I blame such a strong and strange reaction of certain fans, on the over the top reaction of the media to the incident, it is just fire versus fire or in this case bs of the media vs bs of the fans. My guess is some people here are just reacting strongly to the perception of a witch hunt against Michael? So come up with a bunch of ill-thought out counter-arguments, a bit like Schumi does when he's in an awkward position too (both off track and on). Like idol, like (very few) fans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my viewpoint- not at all.

Don't care for witch-hunts or conspiracy theories, and Blah Blah not a fan am a fan don't give a rats harris.

It is what it is. No more, no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.Did Michael make his intention clear, seeing that Rubens had a massive closing speed? No, he remained in the middle of the road.

2. When did Michael make his move to the right hand side? When Rubens was closing? No, when Rubens was alongside. He was committed to that side.

3. To say that Rubens could have backed out of the move is ridiculous; his front wheels were ahead of Michael's rears when Michael squeezed. Braking would have caused Rubens front wheels to hit Michael's rears. He could not move either to the left or to the right.

4. By this point, the outcome of both drivers was purely in the control of Michael and Michael only.

Conclusion; you can only back out of a move if you have the space. Rubens had no space. Please feel free to watch the move again and analyze it differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve. I WATCHED THE ****ING THING, OVER AND OVER.

HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT WAS COMING. I COULD SEE IT HAPPEN.

I can't believe, nevermind. I have finished.

Mike's right. Jesus H. Rubens

Final post on the matter, and don't give a flying ****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: Well, looks like we'll all have to agree to disagree.

@Dribbler: yep, Brundle called it very quickly that braking in that situation isn't possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I *was* a fan of Kimi until he made so many stupid errors that cost him so much that I couldn't really get behind him.

Steph, I'm 100% with your arguments here. You've nailed what I was trying to say. I think the prof is losing the plot amidst all those words.

You think if it had happened in Jim Clark's day, which it did that our 1960's selves would accept or refute it?

Ha. Just imagining myself in the 60's is quite a trip. I'd have gotten to see Hendrix at least!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stayed out of this thread for this long, as a Michael fan, because I value my computer currently, and I worried that if I clicked on here by mistake and read what I presumed would be in here, the computer would be out the window within 5 seconds.

Now I have clicked here though, I must ask. Who is this "Schummacher" guy you speak off? Witness X? One of Max's Nazi hookers? The 146376325785246509424751094th person Tamara Ecclestone has done?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lucky Tamara! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stayed out of this thread for this long, as a Michael fan, because I value my computer currently, and I worried that if I clicked on here by mistake and read what I presumed would be in here, the computer would be out the window within 5 seconds.

Now I have clicked here though, I must ask. Who is this "Schummacher" guy you speak off? Witness X? One of Max's Nazi hookers? The 146376325785246509424751094th person Tamara Ecclestone has done?

On a serious note though, in order to gain credibility, one has to be objective when observing your favourite driver. I think it's pretty clear I like Michael, but as I have stated many times, it just makes me look more stupid than I already am if I defend something that I truly don't believe in. Or, more worryingly, wear rose tinted spectacles that do not enable me to see clearly.

This makes me question whether I am in fact a 'fan'. By definition, it implies fanaticism and devotion at all cost. In that way, no I am not a fan. I liked the way he drove and tenacity he showed. I'm not a fan of his comeback performance, yet.

Don't shy away from threads you think will make you annoyed, harness them with reason. Reply to the posts that are well thought through and ignore(or occasionally, as I like to, tread on with extreme prejudice) the ill-though out idiotic rantings of the dumb-witted, snot gobbling f*ckwits with brain lepresy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. And don't get goaded into losing your rag by a half p**s poor attempt to make you look like a c*ck with no direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.........makes me question whether I am in fact a 'fan'. By definition, it implies fanaticism and devotion at all cost. In that way, no I am not a fan. .......

On the contrary Stephenage, yourself, Mike, TP and (....bollocks, can't mention everyone, you know who you are!) others, I'd say are connoisseurs of the sport ;)

Don't shy away from threads you think will make you annoyed, harness them with reason. Reply to the posts that are well thought through and ignore(or occasionally, as I like to, tread on with extreme prejudice) the ill-though out idiotic rantings of the dumb-witted, snot gobbling f*ckwits with brain lepresy.

I've been guilty of this, in particular with the Rubens 'n Michael issue. Mainly because (apart from time!!), imo, some opinions I've read are very close to what I think, but not quite......so I'll give it a go.........

Looking at the footage of Michaels squeeze on Rubens in slow motion is a waste of time. To get the mental picture of the moment and make your judgement in the same timescale they had to make their judgement, it needs to be watched within the very few seconds it took.

Could Rubens have braked? No need, a very slight lift at that speed is like you slamming the brakes on in your Honda Civic, but that's not the point, this was a legitimate move for Rubens to occupy a piece of track that had the space for him.....Rubens followed Michael in the tow, MS was edging over to the right, but, and I agree with Steve here, Rubens wing was at least alongside Michaels rear wheel, and at that point Michael was glued to the mirror, watching Rubens and knew full well where he was – by the time the gap starts to look like a dangerous thing, Rubens is comfortably half way inside Michael – a point of no return, a point for the driver just ahead to make sure any squeezing leaves a cars width, to the track edge, the white line.

Should Rubens have backed off? I don’t think you can show me an F1 move where a driver has been so far alongside, only to have to get out of it at the same point Rubens was so far alongside, so why in this instance?

Is it acceptable racing practise to continue moving your opponent over, at a point they are not fully alongside? Yes, but when you do that, you know you're making a decreasing gap, and that gap can be closed until you've left a full car's width (if the opponent is still making progress alongside you), and the white line is the edge of the track, not the wall.

I've raced a wee bit, and whilst I’ve had countless times where I’ve squeezed or the other guy has, I've only had one that did what Michael did, and once fully alongside, I refused to carry on matching his line, which was decreasing my space, and I chose a line parallel with the edge of the track, neither moving further over or back on him. We touched wheel to wheel and we were both out of the race, later I decked him, which is how all the best unwritten rules came about ;) There used to be extremely simple unwritten rules – this one is that, when fully alongside, an opponent can move over on you, but you can keep your line too – you watch the space and don’t touch. The point of moving your opponent over is to make sure they get crap on their tyres and are on a compromised line. Indeedy, only recently (and arguably!), Webber kept an arrow straight line parallel to the track edge whilst Vettel chose to move over with a car in the way, that too was dumb.

Imo, this was unfair and unsporting (but that’s a weakness I have ;-), potentially (and unnecessarily) dangerous, and remarkably stupid considering the pit exit too.

I love hard racing, but I love hard, intelligent racing – tell me, the famous footage of Gilles V and Rene Arnoux at Dijon, both could have done this, neither did, isn’t that the type of ‘unwritten rule’ you want drivers to race by or not?

Blame? 99% MS for squeezing over dangerously, 1% Rubens for being born. :P

Peace ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

A perfect description of the way I see it, cheers Meds. The only thing I'd add is that they were only battling for 10th position (iirc). I would be more understanding of such a move if it was for a world title or even a GP victory but that was not the case here (I mean I'd understand why Schumi did it, it would still be as dangerous, unsporting, etc). Michael lost some speed but the ruthless streak is still there, and that's an odd combination. At least before when he was making that kind of move he was benefiting from it, now he's getting the flak but none of the glory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...