planetf1.com

As per the title.

I'm not really in a position to suggest a list for this particular topic, though I'm rewatching many seasons in recent times (fun stuff).


...Guessing this will be a difficult task.

Question: Are you using the F1TV app to re-watch seasons?

Only partially. I have to find what I can from where I can which is usually a mixture of F1TV, youtube and dailymotion. F1TV doesn't have a complete archive.


For example, F1TV Archive has 3 races only for each season from 1996-1998 and 5 for 1999.

Oh man, difficult task! I don't think I have ever attempted that

Not an easy task, but here goes:

BEST TO WORST
1995 - destroyed his opponents in a car that was clearly inferior
1996 - got those victories in a car that didn't deserve them
1998 - took the Driver's Championship to the last race with a car that was lapped in the first race
1994 - always miles ahead of his teammate (even if with help of a traction control system), carried the team basically alone to WCC contention
1997 - squeezed 100% out of every opportunity given to him and out of his opponents' mistakes
2002 - dominated whole year, didn't put a wheel wrong
2000 - very strong year but got involved in some incidents
2001 - similar to 2001, only with a better car and weaker opposition
1991 - extremely strong debut as a rookie
1993 - definitely stronger than 1992, bad luck robbed a couple of victories
1999 - a couple of weaker races and leg injury
2003 - a number of mistakes through the year, helped by mid-season tire change
2004 - a couple of unnecessary mistakes, same goes for the next two years
2005
2006
1992 - still a couple of "rookie" style errors
2012 - best of the comeback years, in my opinion MSC was getting more hang of it every year
2011 - much closer to Rosberg than previous year
2010 - seemed a bit rusty at times, wasn't really close to Rosberg

Feel free to comment

1. 1995-The Williams was clearly the better car and yet Michael not only won the title; he dominated the opposition. He won 9 of 16 races in the second best car that year. Okay, Damon Hill was an error machine that season and there was no more Senna, Prost or Mansell in F1; leaving a bit of a vacuum. None the less that was a phenomenal season.
2. 2002-Sure the car was dominant but Michel controlled a season more comprehensively than any driver ever. Finished on the podium in all 17 races and won 11 of them.
3. 1997-Michael put up a title fight in a car that was miles behind the Williams. This was the equivalent of someone taking the championship to the final round against Mercedes in 2014.
4. 1996-Set the tone for his time at Ferrari. What an impressive start. Maybe his best year in qualifying in his career and dragged that car to places it didn't belong.
5. 2000-First title with Ferrari and well earned. This was the first time we saw Michael deliver under pressure in a close title fight without taking someone out. Not a perfect year but very strong.
6. 1998-Another great season in a car that was clearly outmatched. Up there with any of Alonso's years circa 2011-2013.
7. 2004-Dominant and record setting season (though not error free).
8. 1994-Cheating scandal and final round tactics aside; Michael truly arrived in this season. After Senna's death, there was a vacuum left behind for who would be the sport's top driver. Michael filled that vacuum immediately and comprehensively. He did have the best car overall that year and there was a lot of controversy but he was also clearly better than his competition.
9. 1992-Outscored Senna in only his second year. This was when people started to see him as a future champion.

Those were his strongest years. I'll edit to add the weaker ones in later.

1997 - Nearly took the championship in a car that was probably 4th quickest over the season. Had no business challenging for the WDC. I'm ignoring Jerez.
1995 - Dominant with a dominant car.
2001 - Same as 1995. Made the car look dominant. And often underrated season IMO
1998 - Some great drives to hang on in there.
2002 - Consistent class. A podium at every race.
2000 - Well deserved championship against a peak Mika.
1996 - This feels like it should be higher. 3 wins in an evil handling car.
1994 - Dominant in most of the races he run.
1999 - The greatest ever number 2.
2006 - A good run but less memorable for me than the seasons rated higher.
2004 - A dominant run to the WDC. I think he was as dominant as the car if not more so. A few lack lustre races after the championship was sewn up.
1992 - Put himself on the map.
2005 - Bit of a meh year by his standards.
2003 - Slightly over his prime. Made some errors. The field seemed to catch him up a bit.
1993 - Good consolidation year. Maybe should've beaten Senna.
2012 - Equal to Rosberg.
2011 - Nearly as good as Rosberg.
2010 - Not as good as Rosberg.

Schumacher for me is the greatest not only for how good he was but for the length of time he was that good.

mikeyg123 wrote:1997 - Nearly took the championship in a car that was probably 4th quickest over the season. Had no business challenging for the WDC. I'm ignoring Jerez.
1995 - Dominant with a dominant car.
2001 - Same as 1995. Made the car look dominant. And often underrated season IMO
1998 - Some great drives to hang on in there.
2002 - Consistent class. A podium at every race.
2000 - Well deserved championship against a peak Mika.
1996 - This feels like it should be higher. 3 wins in an evil handling car.
1994 - Dominant in most of the races he run.
1999 - The greatest ever number 2.
2006 - A good run but less memorable for me than the seasons rated higher.
2004 - A dominant run to the WDC. I think he was as dominant as the car if not more so. A few lack lustre races after the championship was sewn up.
1992 - Put himself on the map.
2005 - Bit of a meh year by his standards.
2003 - Slightly over his prime. Made some errors. The field seemed to catch him up a bit.
1993 - Good consolidation year. Maybe should've beaten Senna.
2012 - Equal to Rosberg.
2011 - Nearly as good as Rosberg.
2010 - Not as good as Rosberg.

Schumacher for me is the greatest not only for how good he was but for the length of time he was that good.

Interesting perspective on the 2001 season, I'd always considered it similar to 2002 and 2004 in that he walked the title in a vastly superior car. 2002 and 2004 are hard to place as the car was so superior that he had no competition, a bit like trying to rate Hamilton in 2014/15 if Rosberg hadn't been there.

In general I'd agree though that his peak was from about 1994-2004, he was in a class of his own for that entire period. Some people try to belittle his achievements by highlighting how strong the Ferrari team was in the early 2000s but I would argue that Schumacher won the majority of his titles (i.e. 94, 95, 00, 03) without having the best car over the season. And that's not to mention the late 90s where competed for the championship in cars that had no business being anywhere near it. I've always considered Schumacher to be the greatest of all time not based on his career statistics, but because of what he achieved in inferior machinery for much of his career and because I believe he stood further ahead of his peers than any other driver in history.

96 was his best season for me. The Ferrari that year was poor yet he won three races with it, and the Spanish GP was his best win of his career in my opinion.

Title of thread should be changed to Michael Schumacher as he is old news I honestly thought this was about his son Mick.


I never rated him much but he has got a excellent record and probably will never be beaten.

j man wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:1997 - Nearly took the championship in a car that was probably 4th quickest over the season. Had no business challenging for the WDC. I'm ignoring Jerez.
1995 - Dominant with a dominant car.
2001 - Same as 1995. Made the car look dominant. And often underrated season IMO
1998 - Some great drives to hang on in there.
2002 - Consistent class. A podium at every race.
2000 - Well deserved championship against a peak Mika.
1996 - This feels like it should be higher. 3 wins in an evil handling car.
1994 - Dominant in most of the races he run.
1999 - The greatest ever number 2.
2006 - A good run but less memorable for me than the seasons rated higher.
2004 - A dominant run to the WDC. I think he was as dominant as the car if not more so. A few lack lustre races after the championship was sewn up.
1992 - Put himself on the map.
2005 - Bit of a meh year by his standards.
2003 - Slightly over his prime. Made some errors. The field seemed to catch him up a bit.
1993 - Good consolidation year. Maybe should've beaten Senna.
2012 - Equal to Rosberg.
2011 - Nearly as good as Rosberg.
2010 - Not as good as Rosberg.

Schumacher for me is the greatest not only for how good he was but for the length of time he was that good.

Interesting perspective on the 2001 season, I'd always considered it similar to 2002 and 2004 in that he walked the title in a vastly superior car. 2002 and 2004 are hard to place as the car was so superior that he had no competition, a bit like trying to rate Hamilton in 2014/15 if Rosberg hadn't been there.

In general I'd agree though that his peak was from about 1994-2004, he was in a class of his own for that entire period. Some people try to belittle his achievements by highlighting how strong the Ferrari team was in the early 2000s but I would argue that Schumacher won the majority of his titles (i.e. 94, 95, 00, 03) without having the best car over the season. And that's not to mention the late 90s where competed for the championship in cars that had no business being anywhere near it. I've always considered Schumacher to be the greatest of all time not based on his career statistics, but because of what he achieved in inferior machinery for much of his career and because I believe he stood further ahead of his peers than any other driver in history.

96 was his best season for me. The Ferrari that year was poor yet he won three races with it, and the Spanish GP was his best win of his career in my opinion.

In 2001 the Mclaren was unreliable but accounting for the difference in Coulthard and Schumacher I would venture it was a fast enough car that had the drivers been swapped Schumacher would still have been challenging for the championship. It's too easy to write a great drivers success of as having been done in a dominant car. If you're by the far the best driver you will appear dominant even in equal machinery.

I think Schumacher's peak was 95-02. And it was a very high peak.

I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

mikeyg123 wrote: It's too easy to write a great drivers success of as having been done in a dominant car. If you're by the far the best driver you will appear dominant even in equal machinery.

Yeah, looking at the teammate's performance is probably more telling, I wouldn't say any other than 02 and 04 were truly dominant cars. I tend to think of a dominant car where there's some combination of both teammates are comfortably top two in the title race or that an average driver could comfortably deliver a title with a weak teammate, or where it'd be virtually impossible for anyone else to get a look in regardless of driver skill.

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

This again Fiki? Are you still going to argue that slowing down on the fast side of the track (let's not use the racing line term as you don't like it) is the right thing to do? Even after DC admitted after years that he shouldn't have done that?

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

This again Fiki? Are you still going to argue that slowing down on the fast side of the track (let's not use the racing line term as you don't like it) is the right thing to do? Even after DC admitted after years that he shouldn't have done that?

Fiki would argue the sky was green if it could discredit Schumacher.

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

I don't see how being more cautious would have helped, he would have just run into Coulthard at a slower speed. There was zero visibility in the spray and for DC to lift off while on the racing line, and expect Schumacher to know, was daft.

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

This again Fiki? Are you still going to argue that slowing down on the fast side of the track (let's not use the racing line term as you don't like it) is the right thing to do? Even after DC admitted after years that he shouldn't have done that?

He basically helped Hakkinen win the title by doing that, so he absolutely should have done it as a cunning competitor that was trying to find a way to help his team.

Morally it was a bit naughty of course, but then Schumacher was hardly the most moral driver himself, so DC could potentially argue 'what goes around comes around'.

F1 Racer wrote:He basically helped Hakkinen win the title by doing that, so he absolutely should have done it as a cunning competitor that was trying to find a way to help his team.

Seriously? He 'should have' wrecked an opponent to help his teammate win? That's not being a cunning competitor, that's being a cheater. Next you'll say Piquet was a cunning competitor because he crashed to help his team get a win.

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:He basically helped Hakkinen win the title by doing that, so he absolutely should have done it as a cunning competitor that was trying to find a way to help his team.

Seriously? He 'should have' wrecked an opponent to help his teammate win? That's not being a cunning competitor, that's being a cheater. Next you'll say Piquet was a cunning competitor because he crashed to help his team get a win.

Yes, fully agreed.

Plus DC was one of the nicest and cleanest drivers, I would not think that he did this on purpose, even though he was warned that Schumacher was coming hot behind him. I still can't find any excuse on why on earth would a seasoned driver lift on the racing line, but to use his car as a road block is a bit rich

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:He basically helped Hakkinen win the title by doing that, so he absolutely should have done it as a cunning competitor that was trying to find a way to help his team.

Seriously? He 'should have' wrecked an opponent to help his teammate win? That's not being a cunning competitor, that's being a cheater. Next you'll say Piquet was a cunning competitor because he crashed to help his team get a win.

Were Mika and Ron unhappy after the race that this had happened? Did McLaren punish DC in any way? No, they loved that it happened.

Yes, the DC of a few years later said he shouldn't have lifted heavily on the racing line like that, but the DC of 1998 would have also known that, and the DC of 1996 or 1994 would have known that too, this wasn't just something that he newly 'discovered' a few years later.

Hell, I knew DC was to blame and was naughty immediately, and I was just a teenager at the time. MS would not have reacted how he did if the incident was mainly just a bit unlucky, he knew it was a cynical attempt to take him out. Even Jean Todt went down to the McLaren pits before the incident as he suspected some games like this would happen, and he was right.

Siao7 wrote:

Exediron wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:He basically helped Hakkinen win the title by doing that, so he absolutely should have done it as a cunning competitor that was trying to find a way to help his team.

Seriously? He 'should have' wrecked an opponent to help his teammate win? That's not being a cunning competitor, that's being a cheater. Next you'll say Piquet was a cunning competitor because he crashed to help his team get a win.

Yes, fully agreed.

Plus DC was one of the nicest and cleanest drivers, I would not think that he did this on purpose, even though he was warned that Schumacher was coming hot behind him. I still can't find any excuse on why on earth would a seasoned driver lift on the racing line, but to use his car as a road block is a bit rich

You can't find an excuse for why someone should do this because you are overlooking the obvious. It was done deliberately and was a significant move in the championship. There is no other reason to do this and DC never did it during other times when he was lapped prior to Belgium 1998.

Now I doubt it was premeditated, and I don't think the team would have asked him to do this, I think it was all on DC who in his mind knew he was helping his team by doing this, by increasing the chances of a coming together, and it is a fairly safe kind of accident to have happen, a little rear-ender like this.

The same was attempted by Raikkonen on Hamilton in Brazil 2007, (which won him the championship ultimately despite there being no contact), and possibly Hamilton on Vettel in Baku 2017, although I am not sure on the latter as it was under the safety car.

They are all so good.

2003 was a bit rusty. The Mercedes years obviously were the worst. 91-94 he was still learning and improving. His absolute peak would be 95-2002 for me.

2001 and 2006 are quite under rated. He completely destroyed Massa in 2006 which is often over looked.

DC colliding with MS in Belgium 98 was also payback for Argentina where MS took DC out and stopped DC winning that race. Had DC won there and then after DC won back-to-back at Imola 98 it could have been a momentum shift towards DC and away from Mika in that year's championship, (particularly as David had bested Mika in 97), so DC perhaps viewed Schumacher's cynical move on him in Argentina as basically taking him out of the title race, so therefore in DC's eyes Belgium 98 was fair game.

F1 Racer wrote:DC colliding with MS in Belgium 98 was also payback for Argentina where MS took DC out and stopped DC winning that race. Had DC won there and then after DC won back-to-back at Imola 98 it could have been a momentum shift towards DC and away from Mika in that year's championship, (particularly as David had bested Mika in 97), so DC perhaps viewed Schumacher's cynical move on him in Argentina as basically taking him out of the title race, so therefore in DC's eyes Belgium 98 was fair game.

DC was behind Hakkinen in Argentina anyway. He wasn't heading for a win.

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:DC colliding with MS in Belgium 98 was also payback for Argentina where MS took DC out and stopped DC winning that race. Had DC won there and then after DC won back-to-back at Imola 98 it could have been a momentum shift towards DC and away from Mika in that year's championship, (particularly as David had bested Mika in 97), so DC perhaps viewed Schumacher's cynical move on him in Argentina as basically taking him out of the title race, so therefore in DC's eyes Belgium 98 was fair game.

DC was behind Hakkinen in Argentina anyway. He wasn't heading for a win.

He wasn't, he was leading and cruising to a win. He was quicker than Mika that weekend. DC was on pole, with Mika 0.8 seconds further back in 3rd.

F1 Racer wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:DC colliding with MS in Belgium 98 was also payback for Argentina where MS took DC out and stopped DC winning that race. Had DC won there and then after DC won back-to-back at Imola 98 it could have been a momentum shift towards DC and away from Mika in that year's championship, (particularly as David had bested Mika in 97), so DC perhaps viewed Schumacher's cynical move on him in Argentina as basically taking him out of the title race, so therefore in DC's eyes Belgium 98 was fair game.

DC was behind Hakkinen in Argentina anyway. He wasn't heading for a win.

He wasn't, he was leading and cruising to a win. He was quicker than Mika that weekend. DC was on pole, with Mika 0.8 seconds further back in 3rd.

Actually you are right he was ahead of Hakkinen. But he could hardly be cruising for the win he was pressured into an error by Schumacher.

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:DC colliding with MS in Belgium 98 was also payback for Argentina where MS took DC out and stopped DC winning that race. Had DC won there and then after DC won back-to-back at Imola 98 it could have been a momentum shift towards DC and away from Mika in that year's championship, (particularly as David had bested Mika in 97), so DC perhaps viewed Schumacher's cynical move on him in Argentina as basically taking him out of the title race, so therefore in DC's eyes Belgium 98 was fair game.

DC was behind Hakkinen in Argentina anyway. He wasn't heading for a win.

He wasn't, he was leading and cruising to a win. He was quicker than Mika that weekend. DC was on pole, with Mika 0.8 seconds further back in 3rd.

Actually you are right he was ahead of Hakkinen. But he could hardly be cruising for the win he was pressured into an error by Schumacher.

He was cruising to a win because both Mika and DC were on a one-stopper and MS went on a two-stopper as it was his only chance to try and live with their pace. MS only just beat Mika coming out of the pits after his second stop, and DC was faster than Mika all weekend, was on the same strategy and well ahead of Mika on the track at the time of the MS/DC crash, so MS taking DC out was absolutely crucial for the race win, and probably in DC's mind was a big factor in him dropping out of the title hunt early as he reflected over the summer where his title challenge had gone wrong.

Then at the end of that summer, MS is cruising around in the lead on 10 world championship points, about to lap him in difficult conditions in the Belgium Grand Prix, while DC was pottering around out of the points with nothing to lose with a coming together and DC's summer reflections were still fresh in his mind...

j man wrote:

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

I don't see how being more cautious would have helped, he would have just run into Coulthard at a slower speed. There was zero visibility in the spray and for DC to lift off while on the racing line, and expect Schumacher to know, was daft.

I don't want to upset Siao7 too much, so I must tread carefully. What you write first is indeed correct; so by staying in the spray, he is also hiding himself from Coulthard. Have you considered that?

F1 Racer wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:DC colliding with MS in Belgium 98 was also payback for Argentina where MS took DC out and stopped DC winning that race. Had DC won there and then after DC won back-to-back at Imola 98 it could have been a momentum shift towards DC and away from Mika in that year's championship, (particularly as David had bested Mika in 97), so DC perhaps viewed Schumacher's cynical move on him in Argentina as basically taking him out of the title race, so therefore in DC's eyes Belgium 98 was fair game.

DC was behind Hakkinen in Argentina anyway. He wasn't heading for a win.

He wasn't, he was leading and cruising to a win. He was quicker than Mika that weekend. DC was on pole, with Mika 0.8 seconds further back in 3rd.

Actually you are right he was ahead of Hakkinen. But he could hardly be cruising for the win he was pressured into an error by Schumacher.

He was cruising to a win because both Mika and DC were on a one-stopper and MS went on a two-stopper as it was his only chance to try and live with their pace. MS only just beat Mika coming out of the pits after his second stop, and DC was faster than Mika all weekend, was on the same strategy and well ahead of Mika on the track at the time of the MS/DC crash, so MS taking DC out was absolutely crucial for the race win, and probably in DC's mind was a big factor in him dropping out of the title hunt early as he reflected over the summer where his title challenge had gone wrong.

Then at the end of that summer, MS is cruising around in the lead on 10 world championship points, about to lap him in difficult conditions in the Belgium Grand Prix, while DC was pottering around out of the points with nothing to lose with a coming together and DC's summer reflections were still fresh in his mind...

DC made a mistake on his own. He went out wide and on his way back crashed into Schumacher, similar to what we saw from Max. He can't blame the other car for that.

I also don't think he had such greater pace on the wet, at least compared to the Ferrari. DC was pulling away from Mika, but Schumacher caught him easily in the 4th lap before the incident, so a two stop could have worked.

Fiki wrote:

j man wrote:

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

I don't see how being more cautious would have helped, he would have just run into Coulthard at a slower speed. There was zero visibility in the spray and for DC to lift off while on the racing line, and expect Schumacher to know, was daft.

I don't want to upset Siao7 too much, so I must tread carefully. What you write first is indeed correct; so by staying in the spray, he is also hiding himself from Coulthard. Have you considered that?

Haha, thank you Fiki, I didn't know you cared!

Please tell us how could he know that the car in front would lift in the racing line? Blue flags normally mean the other car gets out of the way , not lifting on the racing line

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

j man wrote:

Fiki wrote:

wire2004 wrote:I could argue that Schumacher should of won the title in 98. If not for couthard in the McLaren at spa that year. That 10 point swing would of given Schumacher a probable 4 point advantage going into Suzuki instead of the 4 points I think it was.

The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

I don't see how being more cautious would have helped, he would have just run into Coulthard at a slower speed. There was zero visibility in the spray and for DC to lift off while on the racing line, and expect Schumacher to know, was daft.

I don't want to upset Siao7 too much, so I must tread carefully. What you write first is indeed correct; so by staying in the spray, he is also hiding himself from Coulthard. Have you considered that?

Haha, thank you Fiki, I didn't know you cared!

Please tell us how could he know that the car in front would lift in the racing line? Blue flags normally mean the other car gets out of the way , not lifting on the racing line

Of course I care! We are here to discuss F1 racing, with a minimum of respect for all viewpoints. I will admit I was upset by Mikeyg's comment, because I normally find his posts interesting to say the least. Yours also, by the way.

I don't have a copy of the 1998 sporting regulations, but the term "racing line" only entered the regulations relatively recently. (Its only mention is in relation to defending off the racing line and then having to leave a car's width space to the attacker on the approach to a corner. And nowhere does it define what the racing line is supposed to be. Certainly a flaw in an already poorly produced official document.) So I don't know how the rules said what a driver about to be lapped was supposed to do in 1998. I do believe there was no mention yet of only having 3 blue flags to react, and am certain there was no rule that the racing line belonged to the leader.

To your question; how could Schumacher have known that Coulthard might lift off the throttle on the racing line? Is that the most important question to be asked about this incident? Schumacher had been complaining on the radio to his team, that Coulthard had not let him pass, and he had been gesticulating on camera to make his irrritation known. His team principle, Jean Todt, had been to see the McLaren team about this, and McLaren had warned Coulthard that he was going to be lapped.
So surely the question then isn't why Coulthard lifted on the racing line, but why Schumacher didn't make sure Coulthard did at least have a good chance of seeing something in his mirrors, by offsetting his line vis-à-vis Coulthard's? Irvine did so when following lap after lap behind another car. Why didn't Schumacher think of this? Perhaps because he wasn't used to being lapped, but how much of an excuse is that? Neither was Coulthard...
Also, what purpose did it serve Schumacher, or Ferrari, to wind himself up about not being able to pass a backmarker, when he was 30 seconds clear of the driver in P2? The only possible result could be that he increased his own chances of making a mistake. Which, in my view, he did. I cannot think of a single reason for an overtaking driver to hide in spray, so that the driver ahead could only guess where the leader was, or how far behind. Even when warned about his approach.

I know a lot of race fans, even from that era, believe Coulthard accepted full responsibility for what happened. That is not how I remember what he explained; my understanding is that he fully accepted his part of the blame. That is quite different. I will admit I have not read his book, published a few years ago, and I have no idea what he says about the incident now.

To my mind the best lesson to extract from this whole stupid accident is that Schumacher sinned against a very wise principle that drivers applied well before Schumacher's time: never do more than you have to, to win. Coming only 4 years after the death of Senna, I believe a number of his fellow drivers kept this in mind when racing. But not Schumacher. Would you like me to quote what Autosport wrote about this stupid accident?

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

j man wrote:

Fiki wrote:The same would have been true if Schumacher had been a bit more cautious in that incident. He was gesticulating that Coulthard didn't let him pass, and drove into him when he did. Going flat out when it is not necessary can be quite counterproductive.
His outburst after coming into the pits should have been grounds for a visit to the stewards.

I don't see how being more cautious would have helped, he would have just run into Coulthard at a slower speed. There was zero visibility in the spray and for DC to lift off while on the racing line, and expect Schumacher to know, was daft.

I don't want to upset Siao7 too much, so I must tread carefully. What you write first is indeed correct; so by staying in the spray, he is also hiding himself from Coulthard. Have you considered that?

Haha, thank you Fiki, I didn't know you cared!

Please tell us how could he know that the car in front would lift in the racing line? Blue flags normally mean the other car gets out of the way , not lifting on the racing line

Of course I care! We are here to discuss F1 racing, with a minimum of respect for all viewpoints. I will admit I was upset by Mikeyg's comment, because I normally find his posts interesting to say the least. Yours also, by the way.

I don't have a copy of the 1998 sporting regulations, but the term "racing line" only entered the regulations relatively recently. (Its only mention is in relation to defending off the racing line and then having to leave a car's width space to the attacker on the approach to a corner. And nowhere does it define what the racing line is supposed to be. Certainly a flaw in an already poorly produced official document.) So I don't know how the rules said what a driver about to be lapped was supposed to do in 1998. I do believe there was no mention yet of only having 3 blue flags to react, and am certain there was no rule that the racing line belonged to the leader.

To your question; how could Schumacher have known that Coulthard might lift off the throttle on the racing line? Is that the most important question to be asked about this incident? Schumacher had been complaining on the radio to his team, that Coulthard had not let him pass, and he had been gesticulating on camera to make his irrritation known. His team principle, Jean Todt, had been to see the McLaren team about this, and McLaren had warned Coulthard that he was going to be lapped.
So surely the question then isn't why Coulthard lifted on the racing line, but why Schumacher didn't make sure Coulthard did at least have a good chance of seeing something in his mirrors, by offsetting his line vis-à-vis Coulthard's? Irvine did so when following lap after lap behind another car. Why didn't Schumacher think of this? Perhaps because he wasn't used to being lapped, but how much of an excuse is that? Neither was Coulthard...
Also, what purpose did it serve Schumacher, or Ferrari, to wind himself up about not being able to pass a backmarker, when he was 30 seconds clear of the driver in P2? The only possible result could be that he increased his own chances of making a mistake. Which, in my view, he did. I cannot think of a single reason for an overtaking driver to hide in spray, so that the driver ahead could only guess where the leader was, or how far behind. Even when warned about his approach.

I know a lot of race fans, even from that era, believe Coulthard accepted full responsibility for what happened. That is not how I remember what he explained; my understanding is that he fully accepted his part of the blame. That is quite different. I will admit I have not read his book, published a few years ago, and I have no idea what he says about the incident now.

To my mind the best lesson to extract from this whole stupid accident is that Schumacher sinned against a very wise principle that drivers applied well before Schumacher's time: never do more than you have to, to win. Coming only 4 years after the death of Senna, I believe a number of his fellow drivers kept this in mind when racing. But not Schumacher. Would you like me to quote what Autosport wrote about this stupid accident?

It's maybe because you are coming hard on Schumacher at any given time. You do tend to do that and it's not criticism, a mere observation.

Racing line does not have to be on a regulation, nor other things like etiquette or gentlemen's agreements. They just exist. Not every single aspect of racing is covered in the regs, which is why they have the briefing sessions that drivers can ask questions, etc. And racing line is just a name of the optimal line, the fastest line, maybe it is written as such.

But it doesn't even matter. Because the car being lapped, should stay out of the way of the leader, it was not like the 80's that they had to fight with the backmarkers. Also, are you trying to blame the fastest car for being too fast? Come on, he didn't do a Senna... I honestly do not think either knew how close they were together with the spray; however you can see Schumacher turning left somewhat, trying to get a wider line (which is why he hit only his wheel and didn't go full on to the back of DC), so I don't agree about your argument about changing the lines. I think he did try that, although too late as DC lifted.

DC didn't say that he accepts his part of the blame, not sure how you got that idea. He said that he did not brake test Schumacher, just lifted. He did not accept that he tried to kill him (obviously), but he accepted that it was his fault:

http://classic.autosport.com/news/atlas ... p/id/11031

Straight from the horse's mouth, but you still blame Schumacher? Let me ask you, how much blame do you put on DC and how much on MS? That may make it clearer for everyone.

And I do see your point regarding the spray; that's why I make it 99 DC - 1 MS on the blaming...

But we have discussed this before and it is getting tedious. Fun fact about that race: apart from the action on the track, there was action outside it too, a terrorist threat of all things:

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18595659.html

Siao7 wrote: DC made a mistake on his own. He went out wide and on his way back crashed into Schumacher, similar to what we saw from Max. He can't blame the other car for that.

I also don't think he had such greater pace on the wet, at least compared to the Ferrari. DC was pulling away from Mika, but Schumacher caught him easily in the 4th lap before the incident, so a two stop could have worked.

DC braked a bit too late and took a wider line round the corner but it's not like he left the track or anything and therefore would have needed to wait for the track to be clear before rejoining etc.

So he was perfectly entitled to take the line that he took and MS with a full view of everything just plain drove into the the back-right corner of Coulthard's car. With the view and position that MS had, he should have just lifted slightly and he had plenty of time to make this decision, but instead he kept going full-beans and punted DC off, presumably because he needed to get past immediately and even then would be unlikely to win as he had to make an extra stop than DC and fuel-adjusted was likely not lapping quickly enough to make up the extra stop; but punting DC off would increase his chances of making up the time needed.

It was pretty much 100% Schumacher's fault and the only reasons he didn't get a penalty were (i) drivers didn't really get too many penalties for crashes back then, they were mostly all deemed racing incidents; and (ii) the McLaren cars had finished 1-2 at a canter in the first two races and MS was likely going to be their only challenger and he needed all the help he could get to give him a chance in the title fight so I'm sure that was factoring into the stewards decision making too.

However neither of these reasons would wash with DC though, (and that is what is key here when relating it to Belgium 98), hence why he would legitimately still be tiddled at MS for this incident.

As for the rain that you mention, it was only a light sprinkle of rain and no one of note pitted to change tyres, so I doubt it would have helped MS beat DC, and even if it had, DC probably wouldn't have looked that deeply into it, he just would have been mad at what MS did to him in Argentina when he rammed him from behind in an unnecessary fashion like that.

Michael or Mick?

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

j man wrote:I don't see how being more cautious would have helped, he would have just run into Coulthard at a slower speed. There was zero visibility in the spray and for DC to lift off while on the racing line, and expect Schumacher to know, was daft.

I don't want to upset Siao7 too much, so I must tread carefully. What you write first is indeed correct; so by staying in the spray, he is also hiding himself from Coulthard. Have you considered that?

Haha, thank you Fiki, I didn't know you cared!

Please tell us how could he know that the car in front would lift in the racing line? Blue flags normally mean the other car gets out of the way , not lifting on the racing line

Of course I care! We are here to discuss F1 racing, with a minimum of respect for all viewpoints. I will admit I was upset by Mikeyg's comment, because I normally find his posts interesting to say the least. Yours also, by the way.

I don't have a copy of the 1998 sporting regulations, but the term "racing line" only entered the regulations relatively recently. (Its only mention is in relation to defending off the racing line and then having to leave a car's width space to the attacker on the approach to a corner. And nowhere does it define what the racing line is supposed to be. Certainly a flaw in an already poorly produced official document.) So I don't know how the rules said what a driver about to be lapped was supposed to do in 1998. I do believe there was no mention yet of only having 3 blue flags to react, and am certain there was no rule that the racing line belonged to the leader.

To your question; how could Schumacher have known that Coulthard might lift off the throttle on the racing line? Is that the most important question to be asked about this incident? Schumacher had been complaining on the radio to his team, that Coulthard had not let him pass, and he had been gesticulating on camera to make his irrritation known. His team principle, Jean Todt, had been to see the McLaren team about this, and McLaren had warned Coulthard that he was going to be lapped.
So surely the question then isn't why Coulthard lifted on the racing line, but why Schumacher didn't make sure Coulthard did at least have a good chance of seeing something in his mirrors, by offsetting his line vis-à-vis Coulthard's? Irvine did so when following lap after lap behind another car. Why didn't Schumacher think of this? Perhaps because he wasn't used to being lapped, but how much of an excuse is that? Neither was Coulthard...
Also, what purpose did it serve Schumacher, or Ferrari, to wind himself up about not being able to pass a backmarker, when he was 30 seconds clear of the driver in P2? The only possible result could be that he increased his own chances of making a mistake. Which, in my view, he did. I cannot think of a single reason for an overtaking driver to hide in spray, so that the driver ahead could only guess where the leader was, or how far behind. Even when warned about his approach.

I know a lot of race fans, even from that era, believe Coulthard accepted full responsibility for what happened. That is not how I remember what he explained; my understanding is that he fully accepted his part of the blame. That is quite different. I will admit I have not read his book, published a few years ago, and I have no idea what he says about the incident now.

To my mind the best lesson to extract from this whole stupid accident is that Schumacher sinned against a very wise principle that drivers applied well before Schumacher's time: never do more than you have to, to win. Coming only 4 years after the death of Senna, I believe a number of his fellow drivers kept this in mind when racing. But not Schumacher. Would you like me to quote what Autosport wrote about this stupid accident?

It's maybe because you are coming hard on Schumacher at any given time. You do tend to do that and it's not criticism, a mere observation.

Racing line does not have to be on a regulation, nor other things like etiquette or gentlemen's agreements. They just exist. Not every single aspect of racing is covered in the regs, which is why they have the briefing sessions that drivers can ask questions, etc. And racing line is just a name of the optimal line, the fastest line, maybe it is written as such.

But it doesn't even matter. Because the car being lapped, should stay out of the way of the leader, it was not like the 80's that they had to fight with the backmarkers. Also, are you trying to blame the fastest car for being too fast? Come on, he didn't do a Senna... I honestly do not think either knew how close they were together with the spray; however you can see Schumacher turning left somewhat, trying to get a wider line (which is why he hit only his wheel and didn't go full on to the back of DC), so I don't agree about your argument about changing the lines. I think he did try that, although too late as DC lifted.

DC didn't say that he accepts his part of the blame, not sure how you got that idea. He said that he did not brake test Schumacher, just lifted. He did not accept that he tried to kill him (obviously), but he accepted that it was his fault:

http://classic.autosport.com/news/atlas ... p/id/11031

Straight from the horse's mouth, but you still blame Schumacher? Let me ask you, how much blame do you put on DC and how much on MS? That may make it clearer for everyone.

And I do see your point regarding the spray; that's why I make it 99 DC - 1 MS on the blaming...

But we have discussed this before and it is getting tedious. Fun fact about that race: apart from the action on the track, there was action outside it too, a terrorist threat of all things:

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18595659.html

Thanks for digging that Autosport article up. I'm not sure since when I have a subscription there, but it may well be I read it there at the time. Where did I get the notion he accepted his part of the blame? From reading it carefully I would say. I don't read Autosport's conclusion in what they report Coulthard said. And Im taking into account what he said on the day or shortly after. There were two people in that accident, and it's worth looking at the actions of both drivers.

I stand by my remark, and if Schumacher had been smarter that afternoon, he might indeed have been the champion that year. What did Hamilton say to Verstappen about passing a backmarker a few weeks ago? I will happily leave it at that and will read the real thread posts with interest.

wolfticket wrote:Michael or Mick?

This gets me thinking: what would Mick's racing initials have been if he had been on the grid at the same time as Michael? Same last name, same first three characters of the first name...

Would he have been MKS, maybe?

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote: DC made a mistake on his own. He went out wide and on his way back crashed into Schumacher, similar to what we saw from Max. He can't blame the other car for that.

I also don't think he had such greater pace on the wet, at least compared to the Ferrari. DC was pulling away from Mika, but Schumacher caught him easily in the 4th lap before the incident, so a two stop could have worked.

DC braked a bit too late and took a wider line round the corner but it's not like he left the track or anything and therefore would have needed to wait for the track to be clear before rejoining etc.

So he was perfectly entitled to take the line that he took and MS with a full view of everything just plain drove into the the back-right corner of Coulthard's car. With the view and position that MS had, he should have just lifted slightly and he had plenty of time to make this decision, but instead he kept going full-beans and punted DC off, presumably because he needed to get past immediately and even then would be unlikely to win as he had to make an extra stop than DC and fuel-adjusted was likely not lapping quickly enough to make up the extra stop; but punting DC off would increase his chances of making up the time needed.

It was pretty much 100% Schumacher's fault and the only reasons he didn't get a penalty were (i) drivers didn't really get too many penalties for crashes back then, they were mostly all deemed racing incidents; and (ii) the McLaren cars had finished 1-2 at a canter in the first two races and MS was likely going to be their only challenger and he needed all the help he could get to give him a chance in the title fight so I'm sure that was factoring into the stewards decision making too.

However neither of these reasons would wash with DC though, (and that is what is key here when relating it to Belgium 98), hence why he would legitimately still be tiddled at MS for this incident.

As for the rain that you mention, it was only a light sprinkle of rain and no one of note pitted to change tyres, so I doubt it would have helped MS beat DC, and even if it had, DC probably wouldn't have looked that deeply into it, he just would have been mad at what MS did to him in Argentina when he rammed him from behind in an unnecessary fashion like that.

It was exactly the same move as Adelaide '94, so if we accept MS was at fault here, then Hill was at fault in '94?

I remember MS saying that once he was committed to the overtake it was too late to stop short of DC turning into him, which is a fair point. You are right, DC did not go out of the track, but he did make a mistake and opened the door.

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Fiki wrote:I don't want to upset Siao7 too much, so I must tread carefully. What you write first is indeed correct; so by staying in the spray, he is also hiding himself from Coulthard. Have you considered that?

Haha, thank you Fiki, I didn't know you cared!

Please tell us how could he know that the car in front would lift in the racing line? Blue flags normally mean the other car gets out of the way , not lifting on the racing line

Of course I care! We are here to discuss F1 racing, with a minimum of respect for all viewpoints. I will admit I was upset by Mikeyg's comment, because I normally find his posts interesting to say the least. Yours also, by the way.

I don't have a copy of the 1998 sporting regulations, but the term "racing line" only entered the regulations relatively recently. (Its only mention is in relation to defending off the racing line and then having to leave a car's width space to the attacker on the approach to a corner. And nowhere does it define what the racing line is supposed to be. Certainly a flaw in an already poorly produced official document.) So I don't know how the rules said what a driver about to be lapped was supposed to do in 1998. I do believe there was no mention yet of only having 3 blue flags to react, and am certain there was no rule that the racing line belonged to the leader.

To your question; how could Schumacher have known that Coulthard might lift off the throttle on the racing line? Is that the most important question to be asked about this incident? Schumacher had been complaining on the radio to his team, that Coulthard had not let him pass, and he had been gesticulating on camera to make his irrritation known. His team principle, Jean Todt, had been to see the McLaren team about this, and McLaren had warned Coulthard that he was going to be lapped.
So surely the question then isn't why Coulthard lifted on the racing line, but why Schumacher didn't make sure Coulthard did at least have a good chance of seeing something in his mirrors, by offsetting his line vis-à-vis Coulthard's? Irvine did so when following lap after lap behind another car. Why didn't Schumacher think of this? Perhaps because he wasn't used to being lapped, but how much of an excuse is that? Neither was Coulthard...
Also, what purpose did it serve Schumacher, or Ferrari, to wind himself up about not being able to pass a backmarker, when he was 30 seconds clear of the driver in P2? The only possible result could be that he increased his own chances of making a mistake. Which, in my view, he did. I cannot think of a single reason for an overtaking driver to hide in spray, so that the driver ahead could only guess where the leader was, or how far behind. Even when warned about his approach.

I know a lot of race fans, even from that era, believe Coulthard accepted full responsibility for what happened. That is not how I remember what he explained; my understanding is that he fully accepted his part of the blame. That is quite different. I will admit I have not read his book, published a few years ago, and I have no idea what he says about the incident now.

To my mind the best lesson to extract from this whole stupid accident is that Schumacher sinned against a very wise principle that drivers applied well before Schumacher's time: never do more than you have to, to win. Coming only 4 years after the death of Senna, I believe a number of his fellow drivers kept this in mind when racing. But not Schumacher. Would you like me to quote what Autosport wrote about this stupid accident?

It's maybe because you are coming hard on Schumacher at any given time. You do tend to do that and it's not criticism, a mere observation.

Racing line does not have to be on a regulation, nor other things like etiquette or gentlemen's agreements. They just exist. Not every single aspect of racing is covered in the regs, which is why they have the briefing sessions that drivers can ask questions, etc. And racing line is just a name of the optimal line, the fastest line, maybe it is written as such.

But it doesn't even matter. Because the car being lapped, should stay out of the way of the leader, it was not like the 80's that they had to fight with the backmarkers. Also, are you trying to blame the fastest car for being too fast? Come on, he didn't do a Senna... I honestly do not think either knew how close they were together with the spray; however you can see Schumacher turning left somewhat, trying to get a wider line (which is why he hit only his wheel and didn't go full on to the back of DC), so I don't agree about your argument about changing the lines. I think he did try that, although too late as DC lifted.

DC didn't say that he accepts his part of the blame, not sure how you got that idea. He said that he did not brake test Schumacher, just lifted. He did not accept that he tried to kill him (obviously), but he accepted that it was his fault:

http://classic.autosport.com/news/atlas ... p/id/11031

Straight from the horse's mouth, but you still blame Schumacher? Let me ask you, how much blame do you put on DC and how much on MS? That may make it clearer for everyone.

And I do see your point regarding the spray; that's why I make it 99 DC - 1 MS on the blaming...

But we have discussed this before and it is getting tedious. Fun fact about that race: apart from the action on the track, there was action outside it too, a terrorist threat of all things:

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-18595659.html

Thanks for digging that Autosport article up. I'm not sure since when I have a subscription there, but it may well be I read it there at the time. Where did I get the notion he accepted his part of the blame? From reading it carefully I would say. I don't read Autosport's conclusion in what they report Coulthard said. And Im taking into account what he said on the day or shortly after. There were two people in that accident, and it's worth looking at the actions of both drivers.

I stand by my remark, and if Schumacher had been smarter that afternoon, he might indeed have been the champion that year. What did Hamilton say to Verstappen about passing a backmarker a few weeks ago? I will happily leave it at that and will read the real thread posts with interest.

Sure, he could have been cleverer, go slow or avoid going anywhere near his direct competitor's team mate or just sit and wait I guess? But what he can't do, is expect a car to slow down in front of him in the racing line. This is why he thought DC was brake testing him and went to find him afterwards, it can't be any clearer really.

Bold part; if you go only by that, by what drivers say in the heat of the moment, then Max is never wrong about anything... Most of them actually.

To recap, DC has gone on record, years after and with much more experience, accepting full responsibility for the accident (not that it was premeditated), admitting that he was young and less experienced at the time and he should have never done that, but you are still not satisfied.

Then I do not know what would help you change your mind, I am thinking you are actually not keen to changing your mind much dear Fiki.

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote: DC made a mistake on his own. He went out wide and on his way back crashed into Schumacher, similar to what we saw from Max. He can't blame the other car for that.

I also don't think he had such greater pace on the wet, at least compared to the Ferrari. DC was pulling away from Mika, but Schumacher caught him easily in the 4th lap before the incident, so a two stop could have worked.

DC braked a bit too late and took a wider line round the corner but it's not like he left the track or anything and therefore would have needed to wait for the track to be clear before rejoining etc.

So he was perfectly entitled to take the line that he took and MS with a full view of everything just plain drove into the the back-right corner of Coulthard's car. With the view and position that MS had, he should have just lifted slightly and he had plenty of time to make this decision, but instead he kept going full-beans and punted DC off, presumably because he needed to get past immediately and even then would be unlikely to win as he had to make an extra stop than DC and fuel-adjusted was likely not lapping quickly enough to make up the extra stop; but punting DC off would increase his chances of making up the time needed.

It was pretty much 100% Schumacher's fault and the only reasons he didn't get a penalty were (i) drivers didn't really get too many penalties for crashes back then, they were mostly all deemed racing incidents; and (ii) the McLaren cars had finished 1-2 at a canter in the first two races and MS was likely going to be their only challenger and he needed all the help he could get to give him a chance in the title fight so I'm sure that was factoring into the stewards decision making too.

However neither of these reasons would wash with DC though, (and that is what is key here when relating it to Belgium 98), hence why he would legitimately still be tiddled at MS for this incident.

As for the rain that you mention, it was only a light sprinkle of rain and no one of note pitted to change tyres, so I doubt it would have helped MS beat DC, and even if it had, DC probably wouldn't have looked that deeply into it, he just would have been mad at what MS did to him in Argentina when he rammed him from behind in an unnecessary fashion like that.

It was exactly the same move as Adelaide '94, so if we accept MS was at fault here, then Hill was at fault in '94?

I remember MS saying that once he was committed to the overtake it was too late to stop short of DC turning into him, which is a fair point. You are right, DC did not go out of the track, but he did make a mistake and opened the door.

I don't think Adelaide 94 and Argentina 98 are in any way comparable.

For starters, the latter occurred on corner exit and DC left more than a car width of space on the inside for MS, meaning there was plenty of scope for contact to be avoided. In Adelaide 94, Schumacher attempted to crowd Hill off up the inside of the corner entry. The only similarity between these two incidents was that MS was at fault both times.

As for MS saying he was committed to the overtake, that is just an excuse and holds no water at all, else anyone who collides with another driver could just say that to get themselves off the hook. Drivers should not 'commit' themselves to overly optimistic overtakes. In any case, MS still could have avoided contact here easily, he had a full view of everything and had plenty of time to decide what needed to be done to avoid contact.

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

F1 Racer wrote:

Siao7 wrote: DC made a mistake on his own. He went out wide and on his way back crashed into Schumacher, similar to what we saw from Max. He can't blame the other car for that.

I also don't think he had such greater pace on the wet, at least compared to the Ferrari. DC was pulling away from Mika, but Schumacher caught him easily in the 4th lap before the incident, so a two stop could have worked.

DC braked a bit too late and took a wider line round the corner but it's not like he left the track or anything and therefore would have needed to wait for the track to be clear before rejoining etc.

So he was perfectly entitled to take the line that he took and MS with a full view of everything just plain drove into the the back-right corner of Coulthard's car. With the view and position that MS had, he should have just lifted slightly and he had plenty of time to make this decision, but instead he kept going full-beans and punted DC off, presumably because he needed to get past immediately and even then would be unlikely to win as he had to make an extra stop than DC and fuel-adjusted was likely not lapping quickly enough to make up the extra stop; but punting DC off would increase his chances of making up the time needed.

It was pretty much 100% Schumacher's fault and the only reasons he didn't get a penalty were (i) drivers didn't really get too many penalties for crashes back then, they were mostly all deemed racing incidents; and (ii) the McLaren cars had finished 1-2 at a canter in the first two races and MS was likely going to be their only challenger and he needed all the help he could get to give him a chance in the title fight so I'm sure that was factoring into the stewards decision making too.

However neither of these reasons would wash with DC though, (and that is what is key here when relating it to Belgium 98), hence why he would legitimately still be tiddled at MS for this incident.

As for the rain that you mention, it was only a light sprinkle of rain and no one of note pitted to change tyres, so I doubt it would have helped MS beat DC, and even if it had, DC probably wouldn't have looked that deeply into it, he just would have been mad at what MS did to him in Argentina when he rammed him from behind in an unnecessary fashion like that.

It was exactly the same move as Adelaide '94, so if we accept MS was at fault here, then Hill was at fault in '94?

I remember MS saying that once he was committed to the overtake it was too late to stop short of DC turning into him, which is a fair point. You are right, DC did not go out of the track, but he did make a mistake and opened the door.

I don't think Adelaide 94 and Argentina 98 are in any way comparable.

For starters, the latter occurred on corner exit and DC left more than a car width of space on the inside for MS, meaning there was plenty of scope for contact to be avoided. In Adelaide 94, Schumacher attempted to crowd Hill off up the inside of the corner entry. The only similarity between these two incidents was that MS was at fault both times.

As for MS saying he was committed to the overtake, that is just an excuse and holds no water at all, else anyone who collides with another driver could just say that to get themselves off the hook. Drivers should not 'commit' themselves to overly optimistic overtakes. In any case, MS still could have avoided contact here easily, he had a full view of everything and had plenty of time to decide what needed to be done to avoid contact.

Sorry, I disagree. When a driver is going wide like that with another car that close behind him, he knows that most likely he's lost the corner. You can't just turn as if the car behind you isn't there to try and overtake. It's the typical excuse that "it was my corner"... He lost that corner when he went wide, Schumacher was beside him (his front wing was next to DC's front wheels).

Also, at the point of contact DC had not left "more than a car's width", Schumacher had only two wheels on track. DC cut across the track and didn't leave much space at all.