planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Apr 23, 2014 7:47 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 1:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 10, 2010 5:20 am
Posts: 372
Dirty but fast. The win at all costs mentality can yield strange results. Now he has retired for good I find myself less pissed off with his past crimes though.

_________________
[[[[Mark Webber for the WIN in 2013]]]
[[[[Mark Webber for the WEC in 2014 and beyond ;)]]]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 2:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 10:14 pm
Posts: 2460
Fiki wrote:

When he deliberately drove into the man who was going to win the championship in 1994, after he had put himself out of contention through hitting the wall, he threw his reputation into the gutter. And since he never apologized for that move, indeed he tried the same dirty trick again three years later, that's where his reputation still is. At least until he hands that title to its rightful owner.


Hill had more or less 4 extra races and still lost. He did not deserve the title over Schumacher.

You do not win the WDC for having a nice hairstyle and good table manners. Perhaps in your mind you do...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 3:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
FISKI senna was disqualified for turning around and driving the so called "wrong way" back onto the circuit, it had nothing to do with the impact with Prost, ballestrie was dirty senna was able to continue, he was just clutching at straws as senna even pointed out several drivers earlier on in the yr especially at hockenheim where completely missing the chicane and No penalty his flick turn to bring it back onto circuit was totally legal IMO and they disqualify him ( Prost and bellestrie had under table shenanigans going) And 12 months later 90% of the people in the drivers meeting agreed with senna.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
Eva09 wrote:
Fiki wrote:

When he deliberately drove into the man who was going to win the championship in 1994, after he had put himself out of contention through hitting the wall, he threw his reputation into the gutter. And since he never apologized for that move, indeed he tried the same dirty trick again three years later, that's where his reputation still is. At least until he hands that title to its rightful owner.


Hill had more or less 4 extra races and still lost. He did not deserve the title over Schumacher.

You do not win the WDC for having a nice hairstyle and good table manners. Perhaps in your mind you do...
You make a mistake when you say Hill had more or less 4 extra races; he had just as many races as all the other drivers. Schumacher had 4 fewer races than he should have had, because he and his team didn't play by the rules.

You make another when you say that Hill lost the 1994 title; he was rammed by the loser. And nobody had the courage to take action.

Nobody can make a case for Schumacher not driving well; but that is not the point. The title does not necessarily go to the best driver, or the most deserving one, however good it is when that does indeed happen.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am
Posts: 416
Yes

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 821
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Jomox wrote:
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.



Are you saying ramming other blokes from behind is dirty?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 272
Depends on the last time they had a bm and what kind of bm it was...

What was dirty, and thoroughly entertaining, was squeezing cry baby Boobins to with in inche of the pitwall.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
Chriso wrote:
FISKI senna was disqualified for turning around and driving the so called "wrong way" back onto the circuit, it had nothing to do with the impact with Prost, ballestrie was dirty senna was able to continue, he was just clutching at straws as senna even pointed out several drivers earlier on in the yr especially at hockenheim where completely missing the chicane and No penalty his flick turn to bring it back onto circuit was totally legal IMO and they disqualify him ( Prost and bellestrie had under table shenanigans going) And 12 months later 90% of the people in the drivers meeting agreed with senna.
Chriso, it's Fiki, not Fiski. :)

Senna was not disqualified for turning around and driving the wrong way. He was disqualified for not taking the chicane.

Shall we get back to the subject? Schumacher.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 223
Looks like most posters have made up their minds for good ;)

However, Fiki - in response to your post on his "conditional apology" : I read his statement a little differently. It implies that he stands by his criticism of Barichello (to paraphrase - "we know what a cry baby he is") but (1) he accepts that he made a mistake and that the stewards were right in punishing him and (2) it was not his intent to make it a dangerous move, which of course was what the brouhaha was all about.

To my mind, the proof of an apology is what follows. If the person involved does not make the same error, you can be sure he means what he says.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:15 pm
Posts: 7
Location: Montreal , Canada
I don't think Schumi was a dirty driver, I think that 30 years ago everything hat schumi was doing would have been considered RACING. The problems is that now they are very very cautious with all these rules in place which does not even allow you to defend your position anymore.

_________________
Best drivers:
1-Vettel
2-Kimi
3-Hamilton


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Looks like most posters have made up their minds for good ;)

However, Fiki - in response to your post on his "conditional apology" : I read his statement a little differently. It implies that he stands by his criticism of Barichello (to paraphrase - "we know what a cry baby he is") but (1) he accepts that he made a mistake and that the stewards were right in punishing him and (2) it was not his intent to make it a dangerous move, which of course was what the brouhaha was all about.

To my mind, the proof of an apology is what follows. If the person involved does not make the same error, you can be sure he means what he says.
Let's assume that he did indeed mean what he said; then why didn't he have the decency to apologize for the insult he added to the near-injury?

Anyway, I just re-read the news for that month, and was reminded that the stewards really wanted to black flag him, and that that would possibly have been the better signal for youngsters in motorsport. Also, I was astounded to find Ross Brawn thought Schumacher left enough room. I thought he was supposed to know the rules inside out and even back to front.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 6:29 pm
Posts: 3553
Location: u.k
Johnston wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.



Are you saying ramming other blokes from behind is dirty?

:lol: :lol:

_________________
Formula Mercedes

Forza Alonso


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 11:52 am
Posts: 821
RunningMan wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.



Are you saying ramming other blokes from behind is dirty?

:lol: :lol:


I'd rather not have those kind of thoughts posted in public, quite disgusting nevermind don't look good to the young ones on the forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:57 pm
Posts: 150
I don't think having 3 or 4 controversial incidents between 91 to 12 is enough to label 7 times wc as dirty driver .

Instead of labeling him as dirty, ppl should appreciate his acheivments,

Mot to mention the generations of drivers that learned how to succeed in this sport because of how he managed to do what he did.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:26 am
Posts: 416
redjohn wrote:
I don't think Schumi was a dirty driver, I think that 30 years ago everything hat schumi was doing would have been considered RACING. The problems is that now they are very very cautious with all these rules in place which does not even allow you to defend your position anymore.


30 years ago, everything that Schumi was doing would have killed someone...

_________________
As my brother said : "I've got the brain of a four year old. I'll bet he was glad to be rid of it".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Jomox wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.



Are you saying ramming other blokes from behind is dirty?

:lol: :lol:


I'd rather not have those kind of thoughts posted in public, quite disgusting nevermind don't look good to the young ones on the forum.



Here you're the one that started with ramming people from behind.

as for being disgusting, have you a problem with Homosexuality?

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:31 am
Posts: 160
Location: Northern Ireland
schumi7 wrote:
I prefer to look at it as ruthless ;) Most top drivers are like that.


For sure. Hamilton can play rough, the whole 08 season vs Massa springs immediately to mind. Rough on track, and involved in cheating off it too. Alonso bites hard. We might see more of that from Vettel if/when he is in a car that doesn't normally qualify on pole. He shoved Alonso on the dirt earlier this year.
You gotta be ruthless to win. Fact. Michael got a rush of blood to the head a couple of times, and i love him all the same. He fought harder than anyone else his whole 1st career. I just wish he had had a better car to step into when he came back. The Merc made him (and Nico) look slower than they actually were these past 3 years...

_________________
Forza Ferrari


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:31 am
Posts: 160
Location: Northern Ireland
Jomox wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.



Are you saying ramming other blokes from behind is dirty?

:lol: :lol:


I'd rather not have those kind of thoughts posted in public, quite disgusting nevermind don't look good to the young ones on the forum.


Id just like to know how/why you think having an incident is dirty...

_________________
Forza Ferrari


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:31 am
Posts: 160
Location: Northern Ireland
Eva09 wrote:
Fiki wrote:

When he deliberately drove into the man who was going to win the championship in 1994, after he had put himself out of contention through hitting the wall, he threw his reputation into the gutter. And since he never apologized for that move, indeed he tried the same dirty trick again three years later, that's where his reputation still is. At least until he hands that title to its rightful owner.


Hill had more or less 4 extra races and still lost. He did not deserve the title over Schumacher.

You do not win the WDC for having a nice hairstyle and good table manners. Perhaps in your mind you do...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oLSYSJO5Ik - watch from 5.47 onwards and then lets hear what you have to say about being dirty and in the gutter...

_________________
Forza Ferrari


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 2:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Bah can't say that or 97 incident is worth complete disqualification, not compared to crashgate or liegate where IMO brought the sport into disrepute, schumis where all in heat of the battle for titles, if he did it everytime u pass him then thats different, drivers just whinge cuz he has all aspects covered, trying to knock him down, plus Jerez 97 villeneuve said he was goin to dive deep to pass schumi, to catch him un awair. Villeneuve knew they were going to touch that's why he picked the inside so far back as schumi had it covered under normal braking distances, he knew if he went outside it would be him in the gravel, so IMO villeneuve is just as much to blame if not more so


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 2146
Fiki wrote:
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Looks like most posters have made up their minds for good ;)

However, Fiki - in response to your post on his "conditional apology" : I read his statement a little differently. It implies that he stands by his criticism of Barichello (to paraphrase - "we know what a cry baby he is") but (1) he accepts that he made a mistake and that the stewards were right in punishing him and (2) it was not his intent to make it a dangerous move, which of course was what the brouhaha was all about.

To my mind, the proof of an apology is what follows. If the person involved does not make the same error, you can be sure he means what he says.
Let's assume that he did indeed mean what he said; then why didn't he have the decency to apologize for the insult he added to the near-injury?

Anyway, I just re-read the news for that month, and was reminded that the stewards really wanted to black flag him, and that that would possibly have been the better signal for youngsters in motorsport. Also, I was astounded to find Ross Brawn thought Schumacher left enough room. I thought he was supposed to know the rules inside out and even back to front.

Didn't the rules change re. leaving space (under certain circumstances) at the end of last season? I assume this is the rule you mean?

Going off-topic for a moment - and this is a genuine question - can someone explain (in simple terms) the new 'leaving space' rule for me? I ask as I have no idea when a driver has to leave space for the driver attempting an overtake, and when they don't.

Getting back on topic, Iowasonlyviewer is right that its obvious nobody is going to change their mind on this issue. Suggesting that its unfair to call someone a 'dirty driver' for 3/4 incidents over nearly 2 decades is ignored, as is suggesting that Liegate and Crashgate are probably worse as they were pre-meditated (but nobody is calling them 'dirty drivers').

Even so, its nice to be able to put forward and explain our POV amicably.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Ok the over taking rules WAS as follows, a driver may move of the raceing line to defend position and move back to racing line to take corner, only once is this allowed in the one maneuver. NOW they are allowed of the racing line to defend but CANNOT return to racing but also has to leave a gap big enough for car to pass, that's basically how it is now pretty crap u ask me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 2146
Chriso wrote:
Ok the over taking rules WAS as follows, a driver may move of the raceing line to defend position and move back to racing line to take corner, only once is this allowed in the one maneuver. NOW they are allowed of the racing line to defend but CANNOT return to racing but also has to leave a gap big enough for car to pass, that's basically how it is now pretty crap u ask me.

OK, thanks :thumbup: .

So as long as the driver has not deviated from the racing line, they are allowed to leave no room for a driver who is trying to overtake, and effectively 'push' them off the track? I thought how far they were alongside had something to do with it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:56 pm
Posts: 223
Fiki wrote:
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Looks like most posters have made up their minds for good ;)

However, Fiki - in response to your post on his "conditional apology" : I read his statement a little differently. It implies that he stands by his criticism of Barichello (to paraphrase - "we know what a cry baby he is") but (1) he accepts that he made a mistake and that the stewards were right in punishing him and (2) it was not his intent to make it a dangerous move, which of course was what the brouhaha was all about.

To my mind, the proof of an apology is what follows. If the person involved does not make the same error, you can be sure he means what he says.
Let's assume that he did indeed mean what he said; then why didn't he have the decency to apologize for the insult he added to the near-injury?

Probably because he thought his insult was justified. He did apologize for the other stuff though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:29 pm
Posts: 1360
Location: Wrexham, UK
Jomox wrote:
RunningMan wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Jomox wrote:
Very Dirty, even on his come back he had a number of silly incidents like ramming drivers from behind.



Are you saying ramming other blokes from behind is dirty?

:lol: :lol:


I'd rather not have those kind of thoughts posted in public, quite disgusting nevermind don't look good to the young ones on the forum.

Who said anything dirty? Pretty sure Johnston is agreeing that Schumi ramming people from behind is dirty, ergo he is a dirty... driver? Nothing disgusting there, you must have a filthy mind haha.

:lol:

_________________
"You are the universe expressing itself as a Human for a little while..."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
LKS1 wrote:
Chriso wrote:
Ok the over taking rules WAS as follows, a driver may move of the raceing line to defend position and move back to racing line to take corner, only once is this allowed in the one maneuver. NOW they are allowed of the racing line to defend but CANNOT return to racing but also has to leave a gap big enough for car to pass, that's basically how it is now pretty crap u ask me.

OK, thanks :thumbup: .

So as long as the driver has not deviated from the racing line, they are allowed to leave no room for a driver who is trying to overtake, and effectively 'push' them off the track? I thought how far they were alongside had something to do with it?
Where on earth does the idea come from that it was ever allowed in F1 to push a competitor off the track? It never was!

Is this the greatest achievement of Senna and Schumacher? Making fans believe such dangerous nonsense? The very reason why we have seen rule clarification upon rule clarification is because idiots like those two refused to understand the rules. Have we really forgotten that Senna called Prost a coward? And Schumacher's comment about Barrichello in Hungary 2010 comes very close indeed to doing the same. Goodness!

Does it really take another driver's death for some fans to see the rules are there for a very good reason? :x

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 9:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 3150
Location: Belgium
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Iowa'sOnlyF1Viewer wrote:
Looks like most posters have made up their minds for good ;)

However, Fiki - in response to your post on his "conditional apology" : I read his statement a little differently. It implies that he stands by his criticism of Barichello (to paraphrase - "we know what a cry baby he is") but (1) he accepts that he made a mistake and that the stewards were right in punishing him and (2) it was not his intent to make it a dangerous move, which of course was what the brouhaha was all about.

To my mind, the proof of an apology is what follows. If the person involved does not make the same error, you can be sure he means what he says.
Let's assume that he did indeed mean what he said; then why didn't he have the decency to apologize for the insult he added to the near-injury?

Probably because he thought his insult was justified. He did apologize for the other stuff though.
Oh dear...

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
I would've called Prost a coward to, don't u remember ayrton found out he signed for Williams and called him a coward as Prost himself said he was as good as senna. Prost just wanted to humiliate senna and he did to an extent but senna stuck it out and got a few victories in the crap mclaren, senna only joined Williams in 1994 as he didn't want to drive for mclaren anymore and Ferrari were uncompetitive, so he only had Williams. And as for the comment about it will take another death for them to realize. If they havnt learnt by now they never will you kno why? Cuz motorsport is dangerous and they all know it the danger is the thrill. It's like the add on tv telling u to slow down in residential areas cuz of kids (common sense) but if u hit a kid at 40-80 duznt matter the kid is dead.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:29 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Qart-Hadast
I remember I was shocked when I saw him run over Hill in Adelaide. That was not the ending I was expecting. Disappointed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
Chunky wrote:
beanchimp wrote:
I remember when Schumi deliberately nudged Villenueve and got disqualified from the Championship, he said afterwards that he grew up with Senns, Prost, Mansell etc where this kind of thing happened all of the time and was accepted

Rules and times had changed I guess by then, but no one ever called Prost, Mansell, Senna etc cheats

Senna - yes, frequently. Prost - sometimes. Mansell - never in my recollection did he deliberately hit someone, not even a possible.


Portugal gp 1989 he hit Senna off.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 9:29 pm
Posts: 812
Location: Qart-Hadast
diablof1 wrote:
Chunky wrote:
beanchimp wrote:
I remember when Schumi deliberately nudged Villenueve and got disqualified from the Championship, he said afterwards that he grew up with Senns, Prost, Mansell etc where this kind of thing happened all of the time and was accepted

Rules and times had changed I guess by then, but no one ever called Prost, Mansell, Senna etc cheats

Senna - yes, frequently. Prost - sometimes. Mansell - never in my recollection did he deliberately hit someone, not even a possible.


Portugal gp 1989 he hit Senna off.
Actually that maneuver helped his future team mate to clinch his 3rd WDC.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 10:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 104
Fiki
Sorry did your name wrong but was watching senna bad Prost incident on VHS not senna DVD and yea Murray walker sed senna penalized for wrong way on circuit and he did take cicane after rejoining circuit so gotta tell Murray the same mate


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 10:45 am
Posts: 1133
Location: Sydney, Australia
Fiki, having read your posts on Schumacher (Michael that is) for the last few years, I know that you don't like him &, even as a Schumacher fan, I do understand how you feel. I don't necessarily agree with your criticism, but I do understand. I agree with you on the JV thing, parking the car in Monaco etc but I am still out on the Damon Hill, Aussie GP one. Having said that, I am not sure why you don't think that Micheal's behaviour, good or bad, wasn't influenced by the fact that he started in F1 racing against Senna & Prost.

I loved both Senna & Prost but neither were angels. Senna's self belief that everything he did on track was right, justifiable or blessed by God etc was just amazing, but, quite frankly, there were times when I was just absolutely gobsmacked with his justifications. Also there where many times I watched Prost walk (or should I say stalk) into the garage towards Senna with his fists closed, he was so angry, that I thought that he was going to punch Senna out, he never did that I remember, but I wouldn't have blamed him if he had. I sometimes wished that he had punched Senna out. I know, it's not the right thing to do, & I don't ever condone violence, but Senna did sometimes deserve it. This is the world that the young Schumacher grew up in F1. Why you seem to think that it didn't influence him, or it shouldn't matter if it did, mystifies me. Sorry Fiki, not criticising, just trying to understand why you never seem to have any leeway where Michael is concerned :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
Schumi was a dirty driver but some of the members should remember that he came from a era when being ruthless and not giving a inch was the norm. He looked upto Senna/Prost when he was younger, then he raced them and experienced the ruthlessness. The move on rubens in hungary was wrong but it was classic schumi ;)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
chican wrote:
diablof1 wrote:
Chunky wrote:
beanchimp wrote:
I remember when Schumi deliberately nudged Villenueve and got disqualified from the Championship, he said afterwards that he grew up with Senns, Prost, Mansell etc where this kind of thing happened all of the time and was accepted

Rules and times had changed I guess by then, but no one ever called Prost, Mansell, Senna etc cheats

Senna - yes, frequently. Prost - sometimes. Mansell - never in my recollection did he deliberately hit someone, not even a possible.


Portugal gp 1989 he hit Senna off.
Actually that maneuver helped his future team mate to clinch his 3rd WDC.


Mansell was also black flagged that race and still ended up taking Senna out. :lol:

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 3755
As ruthless and as fast as others before him.

So?

_________________
ΜΣ...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2012 8:56 pm
Posts: 379
Fiki wrote:
LKS1 wrote:
Chriso wrote:
Ok the over taking rules WAS as follows, a driver may move of the raceing line to defend position and move back to racing line to take corner, only once is this allowed in the one maneuver. NOW they are allowed of the racing line to defend but CANNOT return to racing but also has to leave a gap big enough for car to pass, that's basically how it is now pretty crap u ask me.

OK, thanks :thumbup: .

So as long as the driver has not deviated from the racing line, they are allowed to leave no room for a driver who is trying to overtake, and effectively 'push' them off the track? I thought how far they were alongside had something to do with it?
Where on earth does the idea come from that it was ever allowed in F1 to push a competitor off the track? It never was!

Is this the greatest achievement of Senna and Schumacher? Making fans believe such dangerous nonsense? The very reason why we have seen rule clarification upon rule clarification is because idiots like those two refused to understand the rules. Have we really forgotten that Senna called Prost a coward? And Schumacher's comment about Barrichello in Hungary 2010 comes very close indeed to doing the same. Goodness!

Does it really take another driver's death for some fans to see the rules are there for a very good reason? :x


Its funny you call Senna/Schumacher idiots yet these two are considered the greatest drivers of all time.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 109
He was - but the fact that he was so often at the front of either the race or the championship meant each incident got more analysis than if he had been at the back of the pack.
Also the fact that he drove with such intelligence meant that each incident was seen as a coldly planned execution rather than a heat of the moment reaction. (perhaps this is why he is perceived as worse than senna)
Add in the fact that he was competing against a clean cut Brit then the story is easy for the press to write. How dirty is he seen by (e.g.) the French ?

As others have said he was ruthless, like many others, I would class him as dirty.

Strangely, from my point of view, fighting dirty to win the championship seems worse than to win an individual race. Perhaps it is the level of forethought required that makes a driver dirty rather than ruthless to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 17, 2012 12:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:54 pm
Posts: 614
Fiki wrote:
Eva09 wrote:
Fiki wrote:

When he deliberately drove into the man who was going to win the championship in 1994, after he had put himself out of contention through hitting the wall, he threw his reputation into the gutter. And since he never apologized for that move, indeed he tried the same dirty trick again three years later, that's where his reputation still is. At least until he hands that title to its rightful owner.


Hill had more or less 4 extra races and still lost. He did not deserve the title over Schumacher.

You do not win the WDC for having a nice hairstyle and good table manners. Perhaps in your mind you do...
You make a mistake when you say Hill had more or less 4 extra races; he had just as many races as all the other drivers. Schumacher had 4 fewer races than he should have had, because he and his team didn't play by the rules.

You make another when you say that Hill lost the 1994 title; he was rammed by the loser. And nobody had the courage to take action.

Nobody can make a case for Schumacher not driving well; but that is not the point. The title does not necessarily go to the best driver, or the most deserving one, however good it is when that does indeed happen.



Let's face facts. Adelaide 94 should.never of occured. Schumi should of been wdc come Portugal.

In Britain. He finnished 2nd. The British stewards disqualified him for overtaking hill on the formation lap. Although a rule. Was the first time it was implimented. It had happened in grand prix before.
But. Schumacher should not of even had his stop go and dq. Because the British stewards did NOT follow the procedure. And gave the notice of a stop go after 22 or 24 mins later. The maximum time for notifications st the time was 20 minutes.

Schumacher should not have been banned for 2 races. This was a direct result of Silverstone. And not due to anything illegal on the car. So this should've been a nul point.

The dq in spa was fair. Although harsh. I think the only time the plank rule was used. And never had been since.

So sorry. I can defend schumi over Adelaide 94. (hill dived for a corner schumi was entitled too) I can't defend him for Jerez 97. (although I believe he had a car problem. It was developing 2 laps beforehand)

Monaco 06 was touch and go. I think he had oversteer. And corrected on a circuit what you can't really correct.


I've seen worse from legendary drivers.
Piquet. Senna. Prost. Mansell. Etc.

So was schumi. A dirty driver. in his incidents
Going.by decades.

00s and 10s. Probably yes
Post senna death. Touch and go
Pre senna death. No.

I'm old school. If Hamilton or nando did the same to vettel or button. Now what schumi did to hill or senna and Prost incidents. Why most of you would kick up a fuss and cry for bans. I'd be like. What's the fuss.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alienturnedhuman, Aussie Grit, av-rated, Billy, davidb23, hairy_scotsman, Porsan, Yellowbin74 and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.135s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]