Lewis Hamilton - Too Cocky?
16 September 2008, 02:53 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are being totally unfair or even biased perhap's to say he is ruthless. have you also forgotten the German deliberately driving into Hill in order to destroy his car so that he could take the World Championship? And how he would deliberately drive someone off the track if they got near him? He was pretty good at "brake testing" other drivers too! Hamilton is not guilty of that sort of behaviour.
BTW before I sign out of this one the word ruthless was meant as a compliment. I like my racing drivers to race hard and both Hamilton and Schuamcher do/did.
16 September 2008, 03:36 PM
#63
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CHIPP'N HAM
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 September 2008, 03:36 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that the word "ruthless" should not be acceptable when applied to the way one drives in a motor race, or any sport for that matter. It implies the willingness to take actions which have no regard for the rules of fair competition or even to be prepared to risk someones life or limb so that one can win.
Are you saying then that is the right way to go about a sport? Do you think it is right to drive someone off the road at racing speeds? That is what you are implying. Believe me, that is nothing to write home about!
That term can not be applied to Hamilton, if he ever did gravitate to such behaviour he would lose all repect as far as I am concerned, but I have not seen anything like that yet.
C Purvis, are you saying then that Hamilton was totally justified in Spa and should not have been penalised?
Hill was never accused of driving unfairly, but he was entitled to try to drive hard within the rules, as he did.
Les
Are you saying then that is the right way to go about a sport? Do you think it is right to drive someone off the road at racing speeds? That is what you are implying. Believe me, that is nothing to write home about!
That term can not be applied to Hamilton, if he ever did gravitate to such behaviour he would lose all repect as far as I am concerned, but I have not seen anything like that yet.
C Purvis, are you saying then that Hamilton was totally justified in Spa and should not have been penalised?
Hill was never accused of driving unfairly, but he was entitled to try to drive hard within the rules, as he did.
Les
Last edited by Leslie; 16 September 2008 at 03:40 PM.
16 September 2008, 04:22 PM
#65
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that the word "ruthless" should not be acceptable when applied to the way one drives in a motor race, or any sport for that matter. It implies the willingness to take actions which have no regard for the rules of fair competition or even to be prepared to risk someones life or limb so that one can win.
Are you saying then that is the right way to go about a sport? Do you think it is right to drive someone off the road at racing speeds? That is what you are implying. Believe me, that is nothing to write home about!
That term can not be applied to Hamilton, if he ever did gravitate to such behaviour he would lose all repect as far as I am concerned, but I have not seen anything like that yet.
C Purvis, are you saying then that Hamilton was totally justified in Spa and should not have been penalised?
Hill was never accused of driving unfairly, but he was entitled to try to drive hard within the rules, as he did.
Les
Are you saying then that is the right way to go about a sport? Do you think it is right to drive someone off the road at racing speeds? That is what you are implying. Believe me, that is nothing to write home about!
That term can not be applied to Hamilton, if he ever did gravitate to such behaviour he would lose all repect as far as I am concerned, but I have not seen anything like that yet.
C Purvis, are you saying then that Hamilton was totally justified in Spa and should not have been penalised?
Hill was never accused of driving unfairly, but he was entitled to try to drive hard within the rules, as he did.
Les
Maybe ruthless is going a little far, but I mean that I like a driver who will push the rules to the limits and wants to win almost more than anything else. As long as that comes with a dose of driving brilliance a la Schumacher or Hamilton I am a happy man.
Sorry, but the likes of the nice guys like Button and DC just don't do it for me.
You may think Hamilton is not like Schumacher, but you are wrong and the next few years will prove that. The signs are there. Did you see his chop on Massa at the start a few races ago - if I didn't know better I woudl have said that it was Schumacher in the Mac.
Oh and one more thing, you referring to Schumacher as the 'German' makes you look like more of a xenophobe than I think you are, maybe try his name in future - it's Michael Schumacher - arguably the most supreme all round F1 driver there has ever been.
16 September 2008, 04:24 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, you are all over the place.
Ofcourse Hill was justified to make a move, that doesn't make it Schumacher fault because it didn't go to plan.
It was ' a racing inncident'.
Hamilton was not 'forced to cut the chicane'. HE PUT HIS CAR IN THAT POSITION, NOBODY ELSE! Nearly all the driver's had the same view that I was trying to bang home on this forum last week.
He broke the rules by cutting the chicane and yes, he gave the place back, but not the full advantage he had gained from making the illegal move. And it is that 'moral obligation' that the driver's had previously talked about in the driver's meetings that has meant the rule had to be clarified. All because of Lewis.
Surely that underlines how Lewis tried to use the rules in a way that was not morally correct.
Ofcourse Hill was justified to make a move, that doesn't make it Schumacher fault because it didn't go to plan.
It was ' a racing inncident'.
Hamilton was not 'forced to cut the chicane'. HE PUT HIS CAR IN THAT POSITION, NOBODY ELSE! Nearly all the driver's had the same view that I was trying to bang home on this forum last week.
He broke the rules by cutting the chicane and yes, he gave the place back, but not the full advantage he had gained from making the illegal move. And it is that 'moral obligation' that the driver's had previously talked about in the driver's meetings that has meant the rule had to be clarified. All because of Lewis.
Surely that underlines how Lewis tried to use the rules in a way that was not morally correct.
Last edited by Gear Head; 16 September 2008 at 04:31 PM.
16 September 2008, 04:25 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CHIPP'N HAM
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
16 September 2008, 04:38 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CHIPP'N HAM
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lewis needs to mature, he's got to F1 by seat of the pants driving, now he's finding out F1 opperates on a different level to all the other GP's.. it's a points and averages game... once he stops trying to win every gp on every corner.. he'll prove his seat. (If he hasn't already.. just in a more controlled way).
Happy with that staement Chris?
(Only 11 more big sleeps to go)
Happy with that staement Chris?
(Only 11 more big sleeps to go)
16 September 2008, 04:46 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally. That is the most construcive thing that you have posted.
He knackered his tyres on Sunday by driving how wanted to, not how he should have. He needs to start using his head a bit more during the race. Once he starts doing that, he'll be unstoppable.
Schumacher was always brilliant at this. I think his first win (at spa) was largely due to him noticing that his team mates tyres (Brundle) were starting to blister. He then dived into the pits for a new set. Job done.
He knackered his tyres on Sunday by driving how wanted to, not how he should have.
He needs to start using his head a bit more during the race. Once he starts doing that, he'll be unstoppable. Schumacher was always brilliant at this. I think his first win (at spa) was largely due to him noticing that his team mates tyres (Brundle) were starting to blister. He then dived into the pits for a new set. Job done.
16 September 2008, 04:52 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Les, you are all over the place.
Ofcourse Hill was justified to make a move, that doesn't make it Schumacher fault because it didn't go to plan.
It was ' a racing inncident'.
Hamilton was not 'forced to cut the chicane'. HE PUT HIS CAR IN THAT POSITION, NOBODY ELSE! Nearly all the driver's had the same view that I was trying to bang home on this forum last week.
He broke the rules by cutting the chicane and yes, he gave the place back, but not the full advantage he had gained from making the illegal move. And it is that 'moral obligation' that the driver's had previously talked about in the driver's meetings that has meant the rule had to be clarified. All because of Lewis.
Surely that underlines how Lewis tried to use the rules in a way that was not morally correct.
Ofcourse Hill was justified to make a move, that doesn't make it Schumacher fault because it didn't go to plan.
It was ' a racing inncident'.
Hamilton was not 'forced to cut the chicane'. HE PUT HIS CAR IN THAT POSITION, NOBODY ELSE! Nearly all the driver's had the same view that I was trying to bang home on this forum last week.
He broke the rules by cutting the chicane and yes, he gave the place back, but not the full advantage he had gained from making the illegal move. And it is that 'moral obligation' that the driver's had previously talked about in the driver's meetings that has meant the rule had to be clarified. All because of Lewis.
Surely that underlines how Lewis tried to use the rules in a way that was not morally correct.
Schumacher made an error at the corner and went wide, Hill as he was entitled to do drove inside him to pass him, Schumacher then deliberately turned right into Hill's car and broke Hill's suspension. Hill was not able to finish the race and consequently could not gain the points he needed to win the championship. It was intersting to see the reaction on Schumacher's face when he got the message that Hill was unable to continue.
Of course Hamilton was forced to get off the rumble strip to the inside flat bit of the chicane. Had he not done so then he would have hit Raikkonen which would not have been any good to either of them. Are you saying he should have done that? Raikkonen did not leave him enough room to continue to drive round the corner safely. Do you have any concept of what it is like to be straddling the rumble strip in the wet on the limit of adhesion?
Fair enough F1 Man, yes Ruthless is a bit far and as far as driving hard and to the limits of the rules, I agree with you.
Les
16 September 2008, 04:55 PM
#74
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CHIPP'N HAM
Posts: 3,931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Go Jensen....!
16 September 2008, 04:59 PM
#76
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Schumacher made an error at the corner and went wide, Hill as he was entitled to do drove inside him to pass him, Schumacher then deliberately turned right into Hill's car and broke Hill's suspension. Hill was not able to finish the race and consequently could not gain the points he needed to win the championship. It was intersting to see the reaction on Schumacher's face when he got the message that Hill was unable to continue.
Watch the in car footage, doesn't look to deliberate to me nor to observers who were there. Of course the British press have convinced many (including you it would seem) otherwise.
16 September 2008, 07:34 PM
#78
How do you know he did it deliberately? Serious question btw. Other than he is a nasty cheating Kraut of course
Watch the in car footage, doesn't look to deliberate to me nor to observers who were there. Of course the British press have convinced many (including you it would seem) otherwise.
Watch the in car footage, doesn't look to deliberate to me nor to observers who were there. Of course the British press have convinced many (including you it would seem) otherwise.
He runs his car into a wall smashing the suspension, then decides to continue racing and turns into his opponent at the first and only opportunity he will get?
The fact that he did the same to Hakkinen at Macau and Villeneuve at a later date may further remove any lingering doubt.
I can't imagine he would even bother to deny it. He certainly didn't look too contrite when he found out Hill's car was f*cked.
16 September 2008, 07:45 PM
#79
BANNED
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 859
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least Hamiltons got the guts to actually race the damn car rather than just drive around in circles. Incidentally, when i think back to GP races of years gone by, the one duel that sticks in my mind was Mansel trying his best to overtake Senna in Monte Carlo around the twisties, inches away from Senna. Mansell never managed to overtake but it was driving at it's best.
Back to Hamilton, i don't think despite his talent and car he will ever win the championship.
Back to Hamilton, i don't think despite his talent and car he will ever win the championship.
16 September 2008, 08:11 PM
#80
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you serious?
He runs his car into a wall smashing the suspension, then decides to continue racing and turns into his opponent at the first and only opportunity he will get?
The fact that he did the same to Hakkinen at Macau and Villeneuve at a later date may further remove any lingering doubt.
I can't imagine he would even bother to deny it. He certainly didn't look too contrite when he found out Hill's car was f*cked.
He runs his car into a wall smashing the suspension, then decides to continue racing and turns into his opponent at the first and only opportunity he will get?
The fact that he did the same to Hakkinen at Macau and Villeneuve at a later date may further remove any lingering doubt.
I can't imagine he would even bother to deny it. He certainly didn't look too contrite when he found out Hill's car was f*cked.
Here is a quote from a motor racing journalist who was actually there:
I speak as one who was standing, in person, at the exit of that infamous corner in Adelaide '94, with a head on view of the entire scene. I also speak as one who went home and watched his video tape of the incident a hundred times over before I was sure of my opinion. Last of all, I speak as one who is not in any particularly strong sense of the word, a Micheal fan.
So muh fokelore and fiction has grown around that corner that I can no longer restrain myself.
MS slid wide and hit the wall on the outside of the track at the exit of the previous left-hander. This broke his right steering arm and should have been the end of his race and his championship.
He rejoined the track and - after much reefing at the wheel, followed something similar to the racing line into the following right hander. Damon, clearly having sensed that something was badly awry with the Benetton, dived to the inside in the extreme. When I say extreme, if you can find the on-car footage from the Williams, you will see that Damon's front right tyre actually head-butts the leading edge of the kerb. Not even close to a racing line or a realistic passing line.
At that point, Damon's car jinks very slightly back to the left and hits the REAR of the Benetton side pod, Damon's front left hooks Michael's rear right, and launches the Benetton into the barrier at the exit, effectively taking both cars out of the race.
Last time I checked, the rule of racing thumb was that if the car coming from behind struck the leading car behind the halfway point of the car, blame was apportioned to the trailing car.
My personal, subjective observation was, and remains; Michael made a mistake that should have cost him the world title. Damon made an even bigger mistake that cost him the world title. If you want to call that cheating, fine, go right ahead.
So muh fokelore and fiction has grown around that corner that I can no longer restrain myself.
MS slid wide and hit the wall on the outside of the track at the exit of the previous left-hander. This broke his right steering arm and should have been the end of his race and his championship.
He rejoined the track and - after much reefing at the wheel, followed something similar to the racing line into the following right hander. Damon, clearly having sensed that something was badly awry with the Benetton, dived to the inside in the extreme. When I say extreme, if you can find the on-car footage from the Williams, you will see that Damon's front right tyre actually head-butts the leading edge of the kerb. Not even close to a racing line or a realistic passing line.
At that point, Damon's car jinks very slightly back to the left and hits the REAR of the Benetton side pod, Damon's front left hooks Michael's rear right, and launches the Benetton into the barrier at the exit, effectively taking both cars out of the race.
Last time I checked, the rule of racing thumb was that if the car coming from behind struck the leading car behind the halfway point of the car, blame was apportioned to the trailing car.
My personal, subjective observation was, and remains; Michael made a mistake that should have cost him the world title. Damon made an even bigger mistake that cost him the world title. If you want to call that cheating, fine, go right ahead.
And before you say it 1997 was completely different, he was able to pre-meditate that particular event and it was not his proudest moment.
Last edited by f1_fan; 16 September 2008 at 08:13 PM.
16 September 2008, 08:35 PM
#81
"Finally if you really think that in that split second in the middle of a crash Schumacher had the ability to ascertain how badly damaged his car was and to think 'I know I'll run Hill off the road' and to then do it I think you are crediting him with abilities even greater than they actually were."
Why not?
It doesn't take a genious very long to realise that when you smash your steering arm, you will not finish the race. It is not a split second thing, and maybe he had thought about this contingency before the event. He did know he had to finish ahead of Hill before the race even started.
It's what most people would think of doing, but would hope to have the moral fibre not to.
If it was his first time, I would give him the benefit of the doubt maybe.
I don't think he saw it as any thing other than a legitimate tactic and one that he had indeed previously employed.
It is just a shame that he will be remembered for this more than anything else.
Anyway this is so f*cking boring that I will leave it there and let you have the last word if you want.
Why not?
It doesn't take a genious very long to realise that when you smash your steering arm, you will not finish the race. It is not a split second thing, and maybe he had thought about this contingency before the event. He did know he had to finish ahead of Hill before the race even started.
It's what most people would think of doing, but would hope to have the moral fibre not to.
If it was his first time, I would give him the benefit of the doubt maybe.
I don't think he saw it as any thing other than a legitimate tactic and one that he had indeed previously employed.
It is just a shame that he will be remembered for this more than anything else.
Anyway this is so f*cking boring that I will leave it there and let you have the last word if you want.
16 September 2008, 09:48 PM
#83
Good video >>> YouTube - Schumacher Hill 1994 crash Australia
6 of 1, half a dozen of the other.
Interesting point, if LH was scottish, would the scots call him british?
Its starting to annoy me that scottish sportstars are hailed as scottish, by the scottish but english sportstars are hailed as british by the english, why is this?
6 of 1, half a dozen of the other.
Interesting point, if LH was scottish, would the scots call him british?
Its starting to annoy me that scottish sportstars are hailed as scottish, by the scottish but english sportstars are hailed as british by the english, why is this?
17 September 2008, 11:08 AM
#85
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course Schumacher was an outstanding driver, no one has denied that. I saw that time when he drove into Hill after breaking his own car and there is no doubt in my mind that it was deliberate. He was a narural cheat when he did not need to be and that was a shame.
Les
Les
