F1 » Angry Schumi rejects claims he doesn't race fair


He has been back in the F1 spotlight for barely a month, but already Mercedes Grand Prix 2010 signing Michael Schumacher has found himself on the receiving end of some rather uncomfortable questions...

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

Racy

January 26, 2010 4:23 PM

Everyone continues to bring up the Monaco 'stall,' as if that defines his entire career. In that race he started from the pit lane and finished 5th. Try starting last at Monaco and finishing top 5. He redeemed himself for the 'stall' with a great drive the fans enjoyed. I am sure he will get beat this year in races as he did in every year of his earlier competition. All this over a jerk reporter hoping to make up a story. Sad

JohnsonsEvilTwin

January 26, 2010 4:23 PM

So Rob "Ferrari are the most loved and respected team in F1" when its the double diffuser you are talking about.
But when its pre 2009 you describe them as "cheats" with special "powers".

Is this the same Ferrari?

I wonder had it been McLaren who had the DD design, would you be so vociferious against it?
Of course not!

And it was never a gift rob, you created that myth methinks! :-o

Alan D - Unregistered

January 26, 2010 4:24 PM

The contract said that teams had the right to veto changes to the technical and sporting regs, even if all the other votes went against them. Show me one instance where the other teams wanted to change the regs and either Williams or Ferrari used their veto option to block it. And please don't do your usual trick of making up facts to suit yourself like the claims you've made that Ferrari vetoed Benneton's mass damper or they vetoed a stewards decision and stopped Massa being penalised. If you are going to talk about veto, please learn what it actually means instead of what you'd like it to mean. Better still, just give it a rest and move on.

JohnsonsEvilTwin

January 26, 2010 4:30 PM

Rob

There is no denying the facts.

Theissen of BMW is to blame more than anyone, he vetoed Brawns request to have the rules clarified.

Brawn was clever enough to conceal his idea by requesting the clarification.
Because of the veto, there was no unanimous vote. So clarification could not be passed on.
This is a matter of fact and is in NO WAY DISPUTABLE.

dpm

January 26, 2010 4:31 PM

On other moves sure he took liberties but you are there to race and drivers who are willing to not cocede get a reputation for such and normally hold there position or overtake if that's what they want senna prost lauda they weren't multi champs because they were wimps.
Shumi has an immense skill but an an The best racing brain out there. Couple this with a great insight into tecnical workings and set up then that's why even if some of his titles could be disputed he woukd have still been a multiple champ.

rob01

January 26, 2010 4:32 PM

When Max writes his book you two(jet,alan) will eat crow. You neither understand nor comprehend the advantage that was given to Ferrari over all others. That makes you two very special. Ignorance is bliss.

rob01

January 26, 2010 4:41 PM

Alan...not Jet
There is something rotten in the world of Formula 1 right now, something rotten to the core.

The recent Ferrari attempt at blocking the budget cap proposed by the FIA brought something to light that should have shocked the sporting world and have been condemned/punished in the courts of the world.

We all recall how the Italian courts pursued McLaren during the 'Stepneygate" affair, yet they remain inactive when the underhanded and crooked deals between the FIA and their beloved Ferrari were revealed.

But wait, for those of you who don't know....

In 2005 when FOTA were considering a break-away series as an option to staying with the FIA and being cherry picked of all the money made in the sport. Ferrari supported the FIA/Bernie Ecclestone and the mutiny collapsed. What we didn't know then was that in return for siding with the FIA, Ferrari was to receive some real special friendship. Friendship in the form of having one of their members on the board of the FIA (which

richard

January 26, 2010 4:43 PM

i just cannot believe the comments that this thread has started.
diffuser. the problem here was in relation of when the diffuser became part of the bodywork, and vice versa. yes, some teams spotted the possibilities, but when they asked fia, they were told "no way". brawn were alerted to the query, as were williams and toyota (purposely or accidental) and they decided to go ahead and THEN argue the point. ok, they won their argument. but thats all over now. just forget it!
ferrari get more money etc. again, everyone accepts that ferrari have a special place in f1 history. but look at other sports etc. tiger gets more money than others, for appearance, contd

rob01

January 26, 2010 4:46 PM

(which no other team has), more prize money than the other teams and the power to veto any new rules that the FIA would consider introducing Formula 1.
That is right folks - Ferrari had the power to make their own rules in a sport where they were only supposed to be one of the competitors!
The implications of this are far greater and far more sweeping than anything McLaren were alleged to have done!
Let's cast our minds back to 2006. Renault were streaking away with the championship with the car and driver combination seemingly untouchable. Several teams complain about the superior mass damper system that Renault were using and the FIA change the rules to state that the mass damper was a "movable aero device!" The whole thing stank, but it allowed Ferrari and Schumacher to launch an attack on the WDC that was previously unattainable. Happily the attempt failed and Alonso/Renault took the crowns that year

Page 6 of 21
« 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2014 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.