I am not saying it is right, I am just saying that Senna did it because he felt like he was getting cheated while Schumacher did it just to win.
So he had the mind to destroy someones car and nearly life just for revenge? Schumacher tapped Hills car, the same happened in Jerez. I am not discounting it, but it is less severe that barreling straight into another car at turn 1.
Oh yes that must be it; Senna was a blood crazed lunatic intent on murdering Prost, t-boning into his car at a gazillion miles per hour, while Schumacher was just tragically picked on for 'slightly clipping people's cars'.
I was only 10 months old at the time of Michael's crash at Adelaide, but every time I see it as an F1 fan it becomes clearer and clearer to me that he hit Hill's car with the sole intentions of taking him out of the race at any cost. That sort of behaviour should be restricted to demolition derbies and certainly has no place in the pinnacle of motorsport.
Understandable yes, but not right. If people don't have a problem with Senna's move then people should think otherwise with Schumacher. My opinion on 1994 Adelaide is clear. It's no where near as blatant as Senna in Suzuka but I believe that because Schumacher was still ahead, he moved his car back to the racing line but knowing the full consequences of what might happen. It was very much a 'well I'll just move my car here because I have the right too, and if you crash into me then it's your own fault.' Hill in my opinion shouldn't have been so eager to get past there and then. He could have waited a bit because if he had waited his chance would have come and he would have been 1994 world champion. It's an incident that has been blown out of all proportions by the Little Englander press. In comparison Senna's move was far more dangerous and reckless than anything Schumacher had done.
Was thinking about it, then thought that I seem to be the only one who quotes it and, seeing as I arrogantly named it after myself, didn't want to be 'that guy who always brings up his own law'!
1:48 of this video will show how things have changed, and how racing has been diluted into a procession. [video=youtube;fWudFAnSfUs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWudFAnSfUs[/video] Funny how Mika in a Mclaren did not complain over the team radio.
Funny how it's pretty much thanks to Schumacher's other, far more dangerous moves which are too numerous to mention that this stupid rule needed to be introduced.
Eh? What should he have complained about? Hakkinen was in a weaker car and he also made a mistake. Why should he complain? I don't quite see your point here EMSC.
I was never a fan of Mika so my view may be biased against him, But I always had the view he wasnt a top driver and was just lucky Mclaren finally came up with a good car that propelled him to the top. Sure, when the car was good he won some good races but as displayed above when the Mclaren is weak then he became very aggressive in defending. Just as bad as schumacher. Hey even look at Vettel when somebody tries to make a move on him. But in fact I prefer racing like this which is why Im against the new rule in the OP.
A precedent had been set but no effective action was being taken against it. We should not be surprised that other drivers eventually felt they had no alternative but to adopt similar tactics on occasion. Respect for one's fellow driver was being both eroded and rewarded - and rewarded in a very big way with World Drivers' Championships. Ultimately, this is why there is a new rule no purist will like!
Real champions defend and attack like it is a title deciding situation, without the passion to do better, they are mere mortals.
Schumacher took intimidation and aggression to a new level and would quite happily put drivers to the wall to stay/get ahead, leaving them with the decision on whether to crash or not and really didn't attempt to disguise it. I have to say that I actually enjoyed seeing the way that he would attempt to bully his rivals on track. It was exciting and got me screaming and cheering on many an occasion. Yes, sometime he stepped over the line, but so do other drivers... maybe just not with the same frequency. Given the choice between seeing racing like that, or sanitized racing with a magic overtake button on a car with no tools to defend, I'd much prefer the former. I understand the safety aspect, but if you take away the racing, then why bother going out on track at all?
So a big thankyou to Schumacher for forcing the FIA to have to santise racing seems to be the general consensus, another accolade he can add to his legacy, I wonder what he'll add next?
Oh, the irony eh? Perhaps those who admire dastardly tactics may now see the reason behind rules which should have never become necessary in the first place? Such circles are made in the strangest of waysâ¦
And Senna and Prost, as well as Hamilton and other drivers that have predictably overstepped the mark as drivers acceptably do. It is their driving that brings thrills and spills to our otherwise dull lives, so yes thankyou to all these drivers that push the rules to the limit to acheive greatness, and sometimes getting it wrong. In fact a special thankyou to Schumacher another accolade to your short list Miggins.. for the development of great safety as an ambassador for UNESCO and a spokesman for driver safety, as well as his involvement in the introduction of the HANS device to F1 in 2003. Thankyou.. thankyou... thankyou.
