The Michael Schumacher Career/Injury/Recovery Thread

There are more PCs in use the world than there are Macs and Bill Gates earned far more money throughout his life with Microsoft than Steve Jobs did with Apple. If units and $ are akin to victories and championships, then Bill Gates is the GOAT as far as computer visionaries go. Gates also did far more with his wealth for charitable causes than Jobs ever did, so he comes out ahead there too.

Jobs is a bit Senna-like in that he died before he was done and has a bit of a cult following that thinks he could do no wrong.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

Well stated. I would also argue that MS likely had a favorable personality off-the-track. All I have heard is that he was a good guy when the track was closed after a race weekend, but, during the course of a race weekend it was purely business. I can understand that. Yes, MS made some questionable decisions on-track. He did the business and got the results. Jobs seems like he was a general prick all of the time, as his switch was never turned off. MS could turn off the switch.

 

Ok, I didn't fully think the Jobs thing through. You are quite right, Gates is DA man and also one of my heroes. My comments were really more for Fast_Ian.

I was happy to see two Jobs movies/docus come out putting him a bit more into the right light. Jesus he was not.

If you define off-the-track literally as outside the race track/outside of F1 then I actually agree. He donated millions of his $ to good causes.

 

You have to be kind of ruthless on the track competing, IMO F1 is the top of the game!

 

There are limits to how far drivers are willing to go. MS crossed those lines on many occasions. He is the only driver who ever had all his WDC points erased for dirty driving.

 

He has paid the price and he has earned prices. Others have won WDC for similar maneuvers shortly beforehand.
You might want to compliment him on saying he threw it all in for the victory. Or might want to say that was immature.

As you say, statistics correct things to a degree. He might have had two more WDC easily, three also... He did not.

Much is about what you want to see. Much is about public opinion in that particular time, defining the memory kept for preservation.

 

Even though Senna and Prost got away with similar antics. All that stuff about letting the other driver decide if there was going to be a huge accident or not... which people bizarrely quote in admiration or amusement rather than condemnation.

Schumacher runs into Villeneuve and is disqualified from the whole championship (Jerez 1997):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJJZBgNK7FA[/ame]

Senna runs Mansell off the track and then finishes second (Interlagos 1986):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aR0-HAzEea0[/ame]

Senna disqualified from the race, Prost retires (Suzuka 1989):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDAGmI6SH3k[/ame]

Prost turns into Senna, both retiring on lap 1 (Suzuka 1990):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foiswIS44AM[/ame]

As Formula 1 changed and frowned more deeply upon championship-deciding collisions, so Schumacher's approach changed. He always pushed the limit of what was allowed because his job was to win races and championships, but I don't think he went so far again. Many drivers behind all these guys have pulled off questionable moves too, but they didn't garner the same attention because they weren't in championship contention - a certain ruthlessness is part of the makeup of F1 drivers, particularly champions, and even more particularly multiple title champions.

All the best,
Andrew.

 

That's bit of an eye opener!

 

If your not cheating your not winning. They all cheat but only some get caught.

 

I agree...Schumacher's d/q was the result of earlier incidents where similar tactics were used to 'close the door' on the nearest competitor in the WDC race. I still don't believe Michael's incident with Villeneuve was even close to the most egregious actions I've seen, nevertheless he was hit with an extremely harsh penalty.

Ruthlessness is part of the makeup of a champion...that is just the difference between a fast driver and a WDC winner

 

+1000 what MS did there was too much but nothing id consider worthy of complete disqualification

 

F1 is a sport that in order to win you have to bent or break the rules. It's part of the game. I don't think any driver or team has had any regrets regardless the results.

 

While I agree on the one hand that the penalty was harsh - MS gambled on the collision and lost the position, race, and championship, so whether he was second overall in 1997 WDC or last made no difference to him - I suspect that the FIA had long before decided that it wasn't going to tolerate title deciding collisions any longer, after the two Senna/Prost deliberate collisions, then MS' own title-deciding collision in 1994, so it chose to make an example of him. When the spotlight is on you, you have to be cleaner than the guys behind you in the shadows

 

IMO, Some of the point awarding changes and MS disqualification had to do with his and Ferrari's dominance. When MS was unbeatable, GP thought it was too boring. Just like today with the Mercedes.

 

MS was disqualified years before Ferrari became dominant again. He won his WDC by taking Hill out and the FIA wanted to make sure he would not do the same thing against Villeneuve. He tried but the maneuver didnt pan out.

 

I'm pretty sure you mean "he won his WDC when Hill crashed into him...."

If you don't, then revisit the footage and even ask Damon.

 

Looks like Damon changed his mind.

Damon Hill recalls racing rivals Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher | Donald McRae | Sport | The Guardian

"Michael came from a school of racing influenced by Ayrton's career when he managed to determine the outcome of a championship with a crash. In karting that was seen as a legitimate tactic. At the time I thought I'd screwed up. But when you look at the replays it's clear he must have been aware his car was damaged."

 

Of course he knew his car was damaged...how could he not? But did he know how much? Until the car stopped it was still his duty to keep Damon behind, and all Damon had to do was wait. Instead he dived up the inside ASSUMING MS wouldn't stick to the racing line, as he was entitled to do.

That's how I see it, and I've heard Damon say the same thing in interviews....as recently as last year, actually. (the bit about waiting, that is)

 

Agree Damon should have waited. As for the contact, I think MS was trying to block Hill, first he veers all the way to the left and then turns on the racing line carrying no speed.

Please share the interviews where Damon says MS did not crash on to him. I have not seen them and would be interested.

 

It was during TV F1 telecasts from memory. I wouldn't even know where to start looking for it...sorry.

 

I remember

https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/144150491-post1560.html

fluque: start around 1min 50s~. He obviously doesn't say anything about causing the crash.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK95B6osKwE[/ame]

 

In answer to the last question in that video...."both" I would have thought.

 

Thanks for sharing Speedcore.

Interestingly here Damon attributed the accident as a racing incident which seems different from the interview I posted above.

 

yeah I noticed....go figure!

 

Image Unavailable, Please Login