SCHUMACHER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like every other bloody chop/block/swerve that is now allowed.............
A very quick quickie as things are happening in Suzuka as I type: I agree with those who suggest Stroll drifted wide. As Big Ern says, drifting 'to the right' in a left-hander does not require a rightward steering input. 'Drifting right' means allowing the car to get further from the white line on the left and can certainly be achieved by steering left less than the radius of the curve whilst still physically steering left. In my opinion, Stroll does move away from the white line on his left, and drifts towards the centre of the track. However, this does not alter my stated opinion that Vettel put himself in a position of danger unnecessarily – and that he also cut left when he still had plenty of room to his right to avoid potential contact; a possibility he was far more likely to have been able to appreciate, since he had a far better view of the circumstances throughout, whilst there is a possibility (at the very least) that Stroll did not.
As for who started the chopping and a whole host of other manoeuvres previously regarded as ungentlemanly, yes, Senna pushed existing boundaries at the time – but Schumacher took the whole concept to a new level, going to such extremes, so often, in so many different scenarios that the rule book could not keep pace until he finally ran out of ideas many years later (and too late for honour). And that is why current F1 rulebooks are such a mess; so difficult for the general public – as well as competitors and even stewards, on occasion – to get a proper understanding and appreciation of. I know some people seem to admire such ruthlessness but for me, it was/is deliberately punching below the belt on the blind-side of a referee in a boxing ring. And of course, modern-day soccer has plenty of analogous, disgraceful practices trying to exploit the vulnerability and potential culpability of match officials. And in the world of motor racing, this was Schumacher's biggest legacy. Best I leave it at that. Suffice to say, it disgusts me. P.S. Where is Manny/EMSC anyway?!
Yea, Senna was the first that I remember that sometime's tried a tad too hard and created havoc, then Schumacher came along and took these exploits to a whole new level, now of course its considered acceptable by some to rip off your opponents wheels, after all its a sporting gesture.
Schumacher and Senna were similar in that they would put an opponent in a position where they let them through of they crash. I do kind of admire that type of racing to an extent. A bit of bullying does make for good racing.
Well, you say that, but where are they now !!!! I am convinced that extreme levels of risk taking have a serious payback, I had to stop the car and have a moment to myself following the Senna incident, just not worth it.
With safety comes aggression, I think one of the reasons it crept in was because if they'd done it in the 'olden days' there was a decent chance of becoming fireball
I've been there when drivers have died, it's so unnecessary, the very first F1 event I attended 71 Brands Hatch. The cars are much safer nowadays for sure and as you say it encourages some to take less care or accept a greater level of risk or both.
Not really true. One died in a bit of a freak accident, the other injured badly skiing. Don't really think either is relevant to how they raced.
You are missing the point, both took excessive risks, that's why one died, Senna was outdriving the car's capabilities, I can clearly remember watching the earlier few laps and thinking "F--K" that's not good, Senna was absolutely blindly focussed on beating Schumacher, not a thought of the consequences and Schumacher was not satisfied of skiing on piste and paid the price of much increased risk. Both "freak" accidents caused by excess risk, should have given each situation more thought.
He was fated to die in an F1 car, IIRC that's how he said he wanted to go. He scared Prost into sabbatica, not of being beaten, he was scared of getting killed, Senna didn't seem to know fear, which was probably his biggest weakness, and probably did get him killed. I watched a documentary on Jim Clark the other day, he hated Spa and admitted he was scared stiff every lap, yet he won 4 times in a row, after 17 laps of one foggy and wet race he was 5 minutes ahead of 2nd place. He knew where the edge was and didn't cross it, whereas Senna just didn't care about the edge.
To be great at just about anything you have to be willing to take on risk, and that's why they rose to top. Without it they'd be also rans. Can't knock them for that.