good idea I just dont dont think its a good idea. we saw last year how DRS made overtaking too easy in some races and others it was more of a challenge. I think the challenging overtakes were best and some may not agree with me but I thought what schumacher did in Monza actually made it a great race or Webber in korea(?) and makes it 'cant take your eyes off' TV rather than processional 'Fastest car always wins' racing
One of my none F1 viewer friends actually remained watching Monza 2011, because of the Schumacher vs. Hamilton battle, it is funny that the imposed regulations may stymie the viewer increase worldwide, as F1 is wanting to expand.
The problem is that it's impossible to have grey areas in Formula One any more. Personally I still feel Schumacher should have been banned for at least one race for the incident with Barichello at Hungary last year, and I was stunned that he wasn't penalised for running Hamilton (it was Hamilton right?) off the road at Monza. Ridiculous to be forcing someone onto the grass on a high-speed corner And the thing that was proven by Hamilton earlier in the season is that if either of those had actually ended in collisions he would have been.
This is the most important aspect of the Sporting Regulations. And although it may be contentious to discuss Schumacher, he has a very relevant place in this discussion - as has been noted already in this thread. The incident Tomtom cites (above) is one of the clearest examples of why these extra regulations were originally introduced. For that reason, I share Tom's surprise at the tolerance of Schumacher's behaviour on this occasion after such rules were in place, and as an Instructor/Consultant in more than one country, I can tell you that such driving would have resulted in a revoking of the culprit's licence at almost all lower levels in almost all countries - perhaps a year ban, or - if such behaviour had been displayed by a driver before - even a permanent, life-long ban!
Much like the word 'hamilton' the word 'schumacher' can cause much debate, even in the quiet times of forums. Big names will always cause strong debate from all sides.
The fact is he was warned over Barricello, yet did exactly the same again forcing the FIA to explicitly write down what every racing driver should know from the very start of their career (unless they are in a contact motor sport). The worst type of collision is a front wheel hitting a back wheel, and it's exactly these types of collisions that Schumachers action are likely to make. It shouldn't HAVE to be written down. edit: As to DRS, are they keeping the same crappy regulations as last season, a big mistake in my eyes.
Quite! No other driver has forced such a writing down of the very etiquette of motorsport, which every single racing driver knows; and almost all respect without question (or need for it to be written in black and white)! As the most important show-piece of motorsport across the world, F1 gave out the wrong signal when it tolerated such outrageous driving yet again!
I have always always objected to this silly rule. Formula One is all about racing. Hard racing. Yes of course it should be fair but you've got to make the sport as pure for the driver and the viewer as possible. With the inception of DRS/KERS and this, is all defensive driving just banned now? Of course due to the closing speeds when DRS is inacted the one move rule is probably the right thing but take away DRS and you can take away this stupid rule as well.
The rule is still massively open to interpretation. You can defend the inside then move back to almost the racing line for the corner. Once your a few yards into the corner you'll have to go onto the racing line, it will be impossible to not go onto it. You may have a tighter line but you can just hog the apex a little and force the chasing car to loose its momentum advantage. The question is how many cars will go for that one car width gap...
I am not looking forward to the new defending rules at all, I can only see it ending up in a ridiculous inconsistent mess where when a driver tries to defend their position they are punished. If a driver is now only allowed to make one move to defend then the attacking driver should only be allowed to make one move to try and overtake, otherwise it is just going to be a piece of piss to overtake a car: move to one side, defending car moves to defend, then move back onto the racing line and drive past the stranded defending car. Both scenarios are ludicrous in a racing series, cars should be able to defend and attack however they want (within reason eg. not in braking zones) and if it was not for Schumacher then I doubt there would have to be these stupidly strict rules choking the racing.
I very much agree with your whole comment Mifune, particularly the first sentence which I've highlighted. At present, it is very difficult to envisage consistent interpretations of the rules, both from drivers and the stewards. But when a reckless driver risks life and limb to others, and then claims that it is within the rules as they stand, there is no alternative but to insure against it with a tweak in the regulations. It is a great shame that this has been necessary several times over the years…
The fact of the matter is that given the amount of times deliberate contact has decided the WDC over the years (1989, 1990, 1994, 1997), as well as an increase in potentially dangerous incidents over the last two years (mostly focussed around but not limited to Hamilton and Schumacher) it's obvious that there needed to be clarification. In fact, on the subject of the former, how do people justify Senna taking out Prost in 1990? Horrific move, took someone out at full pace. If that's "good 90s racing" then count me well out.
For me 1990 was exceptional circumstances. Senna had been completely screwed over in 1989 by Prost and Balestre and then in 1990 they were trying to do it again and Senna was not having it. It was dangerous but in my opinion understandable.
I agree. Senna's move was also completely pre-meditated. And for those who say that Prost started it all, I would suggest that - even if true - this is never justification for retribution to be meted out so ruthlessly with a complete lack of respect for racing etiquette as well as one's fellow driver. Grand Prix driving is not boxing! Unfortunately, the lack of written rules gave out the message (to anyone who thought deeply enough) that this weakness in the regulations was an area to be exploited for self-promotion wherever and whenever possible. This mentality was further bolstered by receiving no punishment for a disgraceful move in 1994 - only overlooked because F1 was, ironically, mourning the death of Senna himself, and Bernie saw the potential for an instant substitute to replace his villain with an even darker one… Bernie is business incarnate. Bernie is the opportunist. And after a tragic start, Bernie then saw Christmas come early in 1994…
Of course it does! Clearly there are many - Bernie included - who hold differing opinions and/or would prefer to see it differently. I can only offer an opinion and expect it to be disagreed with sometimes.
Which I agree with to some extent, Michael may have made some outrageous moves, but the last time he ever made full contact just to run someone off the road is Jerez 1997. Senna in 1990 was a killer move, not just to win the championship as Michael in 1994 or 1997 but to harm the being driving the other car. Also with Mifune justifying Senna's move: that is not acceptable for a driver under any circumstances, two wrongs do not make a right. Same with Hill in Monza 1995.
Schumacher was and still is portrayed as the baddy of F1. Its hard to loose this image, especially after he fulfilled it for 10 odd years. Alonso was the baddy in this country after just one season at McLaren, from what I've seen it took until last year for that to wear off. Some people deserve to be seen as baddies whilst others seem to (anti?)luck into it. It doesn't detract from their skills, I can't speak for Alonso as I've never really disliked him as such, but Schumacher I'm not that keen on. That said I can see Schumacher is a good driver, a great of the sport who seems to have lost that edge in his return. My words shouldn't be misunderstood as hating Schumacher, I'm just not that keen. Still think he'd do better at Ferrari than Massa
schumacher was the bad guy for me because he drove for bennetton and then Ferrari (As I was a williams fan around then). Im sure this goes for most people here too. So the result is, any small wrong doing he does will be blown out of proportion. Also Another factor to add to this debate is...whether you like it or not and whether its right or wrong, a lot of people watch the sport just to see contact between cars
Two brilliant points there, his driving in Monza was put way out of proportion by Brundle: "AND SCHUMACHER PUT'S HIM ONTO THE GRASS!!" This made me laugh for many reasons, one of which is at the exact same race, Alonso put Vettel's left side onto the grass.. and nothing much was said about this. Sadly he will always remain a baddy in many peoples eyes as you said, but his development of teams and race-craft as well as record breaking moments are something that will remain with that. A panto-villain if you will. There are many sad people out there that like to see contact and chaos, in-fact they are not people, they are scum.
