Michael Schumacher 1969-1993 & 1995-

[Mr V]

mr v did not start this thread, but it split from the Michael Schumacher 1994 thread.

Originally posted by racer69


Now who's fault at Monza '95, Schumacher, Hill or Inoue?

I have to say that Inoue wasn't the best person for Damon to be coming up behind whislt trying to overtake Michael at the same time, but i got the impression that Michael braked early and suckered Damon.

Of course, thats only my opinion.

[Damon]

And it's one that I share!

[Sato san]

Originally posted by Damon
And it's one that I share!

me 2 !

[BootsOntheSide]

Innocent until proven Schumacher would be my take on it.

AFter Jerez 1997, Austria 2002, Austria 2001, Austria 1998, France 1996, Silverstone 1998 and all the rest, its hard to view Mcihael as a misunderstood honest driver.

All the same, his 2 race ban following Silverstone was unfair considering that it was a pretty minor misdemeanour, and his explanation of what happened at Spa seems plausible. He would've had the title sealed long before Adelaide were it not for that.

His driving was impressive in 1994, more so than Hill, but the negative side of his and his team's personalities was emerging. At this point I was still a fan though, Hill was alwasy too ordinary for me to be a fan, even though my dad's cousin was a close schoolfriend of his.

[Red]

The black-flag he got at Silverstone was certainly deserved. The DQ after Spa, perhaps a bit hard, but nevertheless, his car was not according to the regs. The 2 races ban, that's different story, and actually it was more a matter that concerned Briatore and Max, not Schumacher.

Boots, he did nothing wrong in either of Austria GP's you mentioned, other than visibly annoying you. Same goes for Silverstone 1998. And in France 1996 other than stalling on the grid the heck I san see what was his fault. Yeah, Irvine car was caught outside the allowed parameters (by the way, are you OK? How could you omit Malaysia 1999? Aaah, it's in the 'all the rest' category ) Jerez was his fault, and he was proven guilty. Not the case for Adelaide 1994.

[Sodemo]

I don't think people can say "OK, Jerez 97' WAS a deliberate move to wound JV, but Australia 94' wasn't", if he did it once, he would do it again, and he did...

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by mr v
I have to say that Inoue wasn't the best person for Damon to be coming up behind whislt trying to overtake Michael at the same time, but i got the impression that Michael braked early and suckered Damon.

Of course, thats only my opinion.

It is pretty clear that Damon was at fault in Monza 1995. Inoue really wasn't on the racing line, and when a driver fails to catch is brakingpoint simply because some other car is somewhere in his view, than you really shouldn't be in F1 to begin with. Schumacher was really annoyed, and with reason I might add.

Same goes for Silverstone that year. At that time, Priory never really was a corner suitable for overtaking. Simply because the cars are charging almost full throttle thru Bridge than almost immediatly braking into Priory. The footage clearly shows Damon missing his brakingpoint (again), charging in with full wheellock. He was never able to take that corner to begin with. Schumacher is following the usual raceline, not expecting Damon to pull such a stunt, at least under the rightful assumption that Damon is able to break and steer as one would expect from a professional racingdriver. Not so Damon. Schumacher takes the corner in an ordinary fashion, ready to clip the apex when finally Damon's car hits him quite voilently at the end of the sidepod. The impact is also a testament to the diffrence in speed, proving that Damons speed was still way to high to be able to actually take that corner.

A matter of being totally unable to plan an overtaking manoeuvre, or just being to damn eager. Same could be said of Adelaide 1994. Surely is tempting to put all the blame on Schumacher, but looking more closer, Damon isn't totally off the hook.

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by The Monster
I don't think people can say "OK, Jerez 97' WAS a deliberate move to wound JV, but Australia 94' wasn't", if he did it once, he would do it again, and he did...

Be that as it may, you fail to see that both occasions were deciding a championship. It isn't very often that a championship gets decided by one overtakingattempt (or duel) including both final candidates. In both occasions, Schumacher was the one who's position was being attacked. Defending not only meant defending a position, it also meant defending an entire championship. One can assume that a driver will be prepared to risk a lot more in the event of the latter. Coindicidently, in both occasions it was Schumacher who was put in this position. There is really no telling in what any other driver would have done in his position. Realizing how much a drivertitle actually means, makes me assume that most drivers would risk a hell of a lot not to loose that position. I'm not saying its ok, I'm only saying one cannot conclude that those actions and similar actions are exclusive reserved to Michael Schumacher.

I think one Ayrton Senna would have to agree.

[Sodemo]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie

At that time, Priory never really was a corner suitable for overtaking. Simply because the cars are charging almost full throttle thru Bridge than almost immediatly braking into Priory.

Have to disagree on this small point. Back in the old 95' configuration I would say Proiry was a much better overtaking opportunity than when they opened it up and made it faster in 1997.

I have seen many a car overtake into Priory before 1995 due to the longer braking distance required to stop the car(s).

Even though I was a fan of Damon at the time, I did consider it to be TGF's fault, but now im older and wiser I "understand" racing better, and can now see that it was totally Damon's fault. I don't think any Hill fan could defend that collision.

The way I see it, is that the FIA were leniant with TGF in 1994 after his collison with Hill, they gave him the benifit of the doubt, then threw the book at him in 1997 when he proved that lightning does indeed strike twice.

[Damon]

Even as a stark Hill fan I could see that Silverstone '95 was an over optomistic lunge that went wrong. Hill messed up. Now Monza however, well that's a different story...

[Mr V]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
It is pretty clear that Damon was at fault in Monza 1995.

How can you tell from looking at a TV screen that a driver (in front) hasn't braked too early? or the driver behind hasn't braked too late?

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by mr v
How can you tell from looking at a TV screen that a driver (in front) hasn't braked too early? or the driver behind hasn't braked too late?

It's simply not logical that Schumacher would've braked too early. A driver isn't expected to -suddenly- brake earlier than in al those laps before. More importantly, Damon never implied that Schumacher braked earlier. Secondly, Schumacher was quite sincere in his rage, as he wouldn't have been when he realized he braked earlier than usual. A driver of Schumachers stature would know when he braked early. Leaves us with one conclusion: Damon braked too late. Why did he brake too late? Well, apparently he was busy with Inoue. God knows why, because Inoue never presented him with an immediate danger or thread. Sure, it wasn't the most ideal circumstance under which to overtake a backmarker, but surely a driver with championship ambitions should have made that pass easy without missing his braking point. Damon didn't even have to change his line, because Inoue went out of his way like a backmarker is supposed to (right DC? Spa 1998).

[Mr V]

Originally posted by NiceGuyEddie
It's simply not logical that Schumacher would've braked too early.

whats not logical? Michael has a fair gap in the championship, he's being hounded by Hill, who, once he gets past goes on to decrease the gap in the wdc. However, if Michael brakes early, Damon gets to look like a chump, the points gap stays the same and Damon has one less race to try and make up the deficit.

[Don K]

Originally posted by mr v
whats not logical? Michael has a fair gap in the championship, he's being hounded by Hill, who, once he gets past goes on to decrease the gap in the wdc. However, if Michael brakes early, Damon gets to look like a chump, the points gap stays the same and Damon has one less race to try and make up the deficit.

Could Michael have done that without Damon noticing? According to NiceGuyEddie, "Damon never implied that Schumacher braked earlier".

[NiceGuyEddie]

Originally posted by mr v
whats not logical? Michael has a fair gap in the championship, he's being hounded by Hill, who, once he gets past goes on to decrease the gap in the wdc. However, if Michael brakes early, Damon gets to look like a chump, the points gap stays the same and Damon has one less race to try and make up the deficit.

Totally agree. Schumacher could´ve braked earlier, but the facts show he didn´t. I can remember Autosport magazine analysing the whole ordeal, as you know Autosport would do. Initially Damon put the blame on Inoue, but like the facts show Michael didn´t brake earlier, they also show that Inoue wasn´t to blame.