When should Michael Schumacher retire?

[Jaguarman1]

What Ross Brawn has written about Michael giving enough room is complete rubbish.
If you want to see proper hard but fair racing, look back to the archives of the 80s where Alan Jones, Gilles Villeneuve, Keke Rosberg and Rene Arnoux among others squeezed rivals but always gave a cars width of tarmac. They were hard as nails but 100% fair with it.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

Squeeze or push, what does it really matter? Fact is, Alonso's car could have taken some damage. Rubens however could've been seriously hurt. Call it what you will, there is no comparison between these two incidents whatsoever.
No difference considering speed?

No these is no difference considering speed. You're trying to do the exact same thing to your opponent. Whilst I think the little 'jink' to the right was 'wrong', it was no more 'wrong' than Hamilton's weiving in front of Petrov earlier in the year or a couple of other things we have seen.
That Hamilton incident could have caused a similar sort of accident that 'could have' happened today and seeing as though we are now handing out penalties for 'possible deaths' then Hamilton deserved one too and so did Webber.
Unfortunatly Schumacher's name is attached to this one and thats why he has been punished.

[GORDON STREETER]

I have never been a fan of TGF and his arrogant ways. He seems like a typical old racer trying to relive his glory days when he should have remained retired.
Yes he obviously was good in his heydays but always seemed to have the luck to come out best if there was an altercation on the track.
Go back home to your coco and slippers !

[beau1]

Originally Posted by Jaguarman1

What Ross Brawn has written about Michael giving enough room is complete rubbish.
If you want to see proper hard but fair racing, look back to the archives of the 80s where Alan Jones, Gilles Villeneuve, Keke Rosberg and Rene Arnoux among others squeezed rivals but always gave a cars width of tarmac. They were hard as nails but 100% fair with it.

There was no contact therefore there was enough room. Rubens chose to down a gap that was just about wide enough which Michael then made sure was almost inch perfect for Rubens' car to go down, Michael didn't force him down there.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by greenracer

We have seen this man do this sort of thing ALL of his career and has been applauded for it , he was the one who perfected the swerving start with many a close call but this cold and calculated move on Rubens rivals the move he pulled on Damon Hill in Adelaide to win the drivers championship. Good riddance to this cold hearted and self centred individual. Webber's incident although potentionally as dangerous was a geniune mistake with a much better car [braking and handling] as compared to a car less capable. Webbers punishment was taking himself out

Not really worth talking about but the 94' incident is a laughable thing to bring up especially when Damon was equally to blame. That door was always going to be shut in his face.
Get off your bias horse...not a Senna fan are you?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Alex Hodgkinson

Are you agreeing with me there or something else?

I don't think anyone agrees with you. The bottom line is, that was a very dangerous move TGF pulled and there was no excuse for it. I've seen my fair share of Indy Cars go into the wall and at least they are designed with that in mind, F1 cars aren't; that could have been really bad.

[Jaguarman1]

Originally Posted by beau1

There was no contact therefore there was enough room. Rubens chose to down a gap that was just about wide enough which Michael then made sure was almost inch perfect for Rubens' car to go down, Michael didn't force him down there.

Sorry Beau, I can't agree with that comment. Michael didn't force him down there but had plenty of time beforehand to cover it and force Rubens outside anyway.
Never in a million years was that gap inch perfect; it was back off or you're going off, plain as day.

[greenracer]

Originally Posted by beau1

Not really worth talking about but the 94' incident is a laughable thing to bring up especially when Damon was equally to blame. That door was always going to be shut in his face.
Get off your bias horse...not a Senna fan are you?

Senna was another driver who thought he had the GOD given right to drive the way he did, this might read as being cold pity Senna and Schumacher did not meet each in other anger as both of them might not be here. So take off your rose coloured glasses look at the cold way Schu executed that disgraceful move the as same he did in Adelaide.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by jab

But it's only potentially dangerous if neither he or Rubens are not in full control of their vehicles. And I think he knew that he was and probably trusted Rubens to be as well. You have to know who you're pulling these moves against - I doubt Michael would've done the same against a youngster like Petrov or Hulkenberg, for instance

What's not potentially dangerous about pulling a move like that?

[blaffer]

Originally Posted by strider

A 10-place grid for Spa is totally inadequate, but it may be all the Race Stewards can do. If so, they should have referred it to the WMSC for consideration.

Personally I would have given him a 3-race ban because he has made so many moves like that over the years, and this one was potentially very dangerous, that a marker has to be put down. As a seven-times WDC he is supposed to be setting an example to younger drivers.

I totally agree. And in that sense, and also taking into account his post-race comments, I still hope the 10-place grid penalty will be replaced by a more effective and a more severe punishment.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by beau1

There was no contact therefore there was enough room. Rubens chose to down a gap that was just about wide enough which Michael then made sure was almost inch perfect for Rubens' car to go down, Michael didn't force him down there.

That would be a sound argument, if Schumacher was inch perfect. But he had already admitted to making a '5cm or so' mistake at the previous corner - so I wouldn't trust his judgement on that basis alone. A repeat of his error of judgment of the same magnitude would have put Rubens in the wall - no doubt about that at all - plus he was relying on Rubens being inch perfect too - which is a tough call on a guy seeing his life under threat from such aggression.

His move is indefensible.

[pannenmann]

Originally Posted by beau1

No these is no difference considering speed. You're trying to do the exact same thing to your opponent. Whilst I think the little 'jink' to the right was 'wrong', it was no more 'wrong' than Hamilton's weiving in front of Petrov earlier in the year or a couple of other things we have seen.
That Hamilton incident could have caused a similar sort of accident that 'could have' happened today and seeing as though we are now handing out penalties for 'possible deaths' then Hamilton deserved one too and so did Webber.
Unfortunatly Schumacher's name is attached to this one and thats why he has been punished.

Speed makes no difference when we talk in terms of "unfair" or "illegal" actions. I agree with that. But speed makes a difference when talking about "dangerous". The exact same move by Schumi wouldn't been dangerous if it was executed at the speed of 10 mph, but becomes dangerous when done as he did it. Reaction times, impact forces and all that stupid physics stuff you probably remember.
You can't compare it to the Hamilton weaving at all, as Petrov was not close enough to be in danger, he wasn't even trying to overtake. (Besides the fact that Schumi has done real weaving that was far more dangerous than the Hamilton one). Here we are talking about them being side by side with Rubens getting pushed towards concrete with no room left to turn to.

[Alex Hodgkinson]

Originally Posted by phoenix

I thought the A.R.D.S. scheme was something new wannabe racing drivers had to take, and pass, to get a National B licence? - what has that got to do with track day driving? Are you saying that if the trainee is going into Formula Ford or some other kind of racing (rather than track day driving) then you teach them that the safety of other competitors is irrelevant? If so it is no wonder that driving standards have fallen so low in some sectors of National Club racing.

Or do you save that for 'advanced' courses?

Alex Wurz (who I guess maybe considered a step or two up from an ARDS instructor) is on record about how he saw the driving standards of Schumacher today. I think I'll give his opinion more weight - and remind myself never to race against RX-7s

ARDS is a lot of things. The ARDS scheme is the scheme which new-to-racing drivers have to pass through in order to get a National B race license. Most driving experience, manufacturer launches, and track day operators require ARDS certified instructors though, work which is unrelated to the aforementioned scheme. ARDS instructors such as myself have to have a minimum level of racing experience and have undertaken a certain level of training and assessment by senior instructors, who are usually pretty high-profile race drivers.

I've not yet seen the race re-run, so I've not really got much to add to what I said before. I do completely agree though that the driving standards seen in high profile race series filters down to the driving habits of our club racers and that it's important that poor driving at a high level is made an example of.

The general reaction to this incident reminds me a lot of the reaction to Ant's (Davidson) incident involving the leading GT1 Corvette at Le Mans this year. My personal reaction to this is also fairly similar to how I felt about that.

Oh, and regarding track day driving I meant it's a million miles away because it doesn't involve any racecraft, which is what this discussion is all about. If you are practising racecraft on trackdays then you're breaking the number one rule.

[pannenmann]

Originally Posted by phoenix

That would be a sound argument, if Schumacher was inch perfect. But he had already admitted to making a '5cm or so' mistake at the previous corner - so I woudn't trust his judgement on that basis alone. A repaet of his error of judgment could easily have put Rubens in the wall - no doubt about that at all - plus he was relying on Rubens being inch perfect too - which is a tough call on a guy seeing his life under threat.

His move is indefensible.

Him pulling away to the left all of a sudden also indicates that he was surprised himself that there was so less space left for Rubens. If everything was so well planned and under control, why didn't he just hold his line instead of making a move of somebody who seems scared?
In the interview he said that he wanted Rubens to take the left side so he tried to close the right one. So either he noticed Rubens didn't follow his plan, then he should have opened up a little bit. Or he just didn't see him at all, then he should watch his mirrors when pulling towards a wall. Either way it is a rather questionable and arrogant approach to racing. Actually that whole "He didn't follow MY divine plan, so it's his fault if he ends up in hospital" makes me wanna throw up.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

Speed makes no difference when we talk in terms of "unfair" or "illegal" actions. I agree with that. But speed makes a difference when talking about "dangerous". The exact same move by Schumi wouldn't been dangerous if it was executed at the speed of 10 mph, but becomes dangerous when done as he did it. Reaction times, impact forces and all that stupid physics stuff you probably remember.
You can't compare it to the Hamilton weaving at all, as Petrov was not close enough to be in danger, he wasn't even trying to overtake. (Besides the fact that Schumi has done real weaving that was far more dangerous than the Hamilton one). Here we are talking about them being side by side with Rubens getting pushed towards concrete with no room left to turn to.

Watch the footage again, Schumacher was ALWAYS verging towards the wall. The gap that Rubens decided to go for was always going to lessen.
I don't agree about the Petrov situation, putting physics into the equation and the amount of downforce an F1 car has then accident could have easily occured just the same as this one has.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

What's not potentially dangerous about pulling a move like that?

Erm, well what was not potentially dangerous in Rubens deciding to go for that side of the track rather than around the outside when there was about 10 car widths? The move would have been done by the corner but Rubens decided to go for a gap that was always the most dangerous.

[Knowlesy]

You have to be on a windup, jeez.

[mattt]

Originally Posted by beau1

Erm, well what was not potentially dangerous in Rubens deciding to go for that side of the track rather than around the outside when there was about 10 car widths? The move would have been done by the corner but Rubens decided to go for a gap that was always the most dangerous.

But at the time Rubens pulled out of the slipstream the bigger gap was to the right so Why should he have to go to the left so he doesn't get squeezed towards the pitwall. Whos to say if he had gone left that he wouldn't have been forced on to the grass that side.

[pannenmann]

Originally Posted by beau1

Watch the footage again, Schumacher was ALWAYS verging towards the wall. The gap that Rubens decided to go for was always going to lessen.
I don't agree about the Petrov situation, putting physics into the equation and the amount of downforce an F1 car has then accident could have easily occured just the same as this one has.

I can't find any proper replay at the moment, but it seemed Michael did go to the right before Rubens was at his side, that's true IIRC. But also if IIRC Michael suddenly pulled very sharp to the right just as soon as Rubens was besides him. So in that way for Rubens it might have first looked like "He's going right but I'm gonna make it easily" to being suddenly stuffed up to the point he can't even break anymore without risking interlocking wheels. Though feel free to prove me wrong. Lauda also said it was "really dangerous and stupid", "Michael has to admit his error" and other positive things.

[garcon]

I've been one of Scumacher's biggest fans, still am and hoping (that's hoping rather than expecting... ) he might be competitive next season.

However, he's pulled one or two little moves this season that have no place in F1 racing, today's being the worst and most dangerous. Rightly punished in my view.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by phoenix

That would be a sound argument, if Schumacher was inch perfect. But he had already admitted to making a '5cm or so' mistake at the previous corner - so I wouldn't trust his judgement on that basis alone. A repeat of his error of judgment of the same magnitude would have put Rubens in the wall - no doubt about that at all - plus he was relying on Rubens being inch perfect too - which is a tough call on a guy seeing his life under threat from such aggression.

His move is indefensible.

If you really believe that, then quite frankly you shouldn't be watching any form of motorsport. These guys are experts and are inch perfect with how much room they leave for another car.
Its pointless saying 'a repeat error of judgement could have let to...' because it didn't happen!
We might as well not trust any of the F1 drivers with your analysis because they all make the odd mistake but then 99% of the time they do things that are inch perfect. A repeat error of judgement could kill Webber next time he runs into the back-marker, its an utterly illogical way to think about it.

You're a fan of IndyCars right?
After someone makes a mistake and nearly a crash do you then constantly worry about them not being inch perfect or think of what could have happened? I highly doubt it because when it comes down to it, the guys are experts and you trust their judgement.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by pannenmann

I can't find any proper replay at the moment, but it seemed Michael did go to the right before Rubens was at his side, that's true IIRC. But also if IIRC Michael suddenly pulled very sharp to the right just as soon as Rubens was besides him. So in that way for Rubens it might have first looked like "He's going right but I'm gonna make it easily" to being suddenly stuffed up to the point he can't even break anymore without risking interlocking wheels. Though feel free to prove me wrong. Lauda also said it was "really dangerous and stupid", "Michael has to admit his error" and other positive things.

Try this one.

Schumacher was approximately mid track and Rubens had to choose one side or another. In my view, Schumacher only goes further right in reaction to Ruben's overtake, when there were at least two car widths for him and a similar gap on the left hand side. If Rubens had gone left, Schui would no doubt have turned left into him and run him off the road on the otherside of the track

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRv0AfpIANo

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by beau1

Erm, well what was not potentially dangerous in Rubens deciding to go for that side of the track rather than around the outside when there was about 10 car widths? The move would have been done by the corner but Rubens decided to go for a gap that was always the most dangerous.

Rubens took the appropriate line and it only became potentially dangerous when TGF strated to close the gap and squeeze Rubens as he came along side. Up until then there was nothing potentially dangerous.

[Born Racer]

I suspect Mercedes will be weighing up 'retiring' him and asking Michael how they and he would like to present the news.

[beau1]

Originally Posted by mattt

But at the time Rubens pulled out of the slipstream the bigger gap was to the right so Why should he have to go to the left so he doesn't get squeezed towards the pitwall. Whos to say if he had gone left that he wouldn't have been forced on to the grass that side.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/moto...ne/8875328.stm

Pause at 10 seconds. That is pretty much the point just before Barrichello moves over to the right as you can see his car is still in the slip-stream of Schumacher. Schumacher is already verging over to defend the line on the right and making more space on the left hand side. Also not that the end of the pitlane wall angles slightly inwards towards the track just before it ends so that space with both of them moving right was always going to vanish.
Rubens was always going for a gap that was going to dissapear and luckily for him Schumacher gave him just enough room to go down it.