Rantbox

[good_Ralf]

Channel with a bunch of videos suggesting why Schuey didn't deserve all the success he had.

Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.

[Aerospeed]

Channel with a bunch of videos suggesting why Schuey didn't deserve all the success he had.

Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.

Holy jumping, 13 hours of video???

[CoopsII]

I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).

However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.

Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.

Wouldnt it?

[Klon]

Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.

I think the domain "http://anti-michael-schumacher.forza-jordan.com" makes that one rather obvious.

Holy jumping, 13 hours of video???

Never underestimate the power of hate.

[Salamander]

Never underestimate the power of hate.

Have I ever told you how you're my favourite user here?

[watka]

Did Senna have anything to do with designing the Senna S at Interlagos?

[Faustus]

Did Senna have anything to do with designing the Senna S at Interlagos?

No, it was there before Senna. It was renamed after he died because of the double-S logo that he used for his foundation.

[mario]

I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).

However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.

Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.

Wouldnt it?

His position would have obliged him to provide impartial feedback on the proposed revisions for the circuit, and he would have also faced scrutiny from the 20 other drivers who drove for the other teams at the time (if we take Rubens out of the equation as Schumacher's team mate).
Furthermore, the GPDA can only really act in an advisory manner; the FIA would have had the final say on the revisions to the circuit via their control over circuit licences, so any comments by Schumacher as head of the GPDA would not have been binding. Schumacher would probably, therefore, have been called in to look at variants that were already likely to obtain approval from the FIA, which would have reduced any opportunities he might have had to intervene in the design of the circuit anyway even if he might have wanted to shape said circuit to favour him.

[CoopsII]

I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).

However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.

Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.

Wouldnt it?

His position would have obliged him to provide impartial feedback on the proposed revisions for the circuit, and he would have also faced scrutiny from the 20 other drivers who drove for the other teams at the time (if we take Rubens out of the equation as Schumacher's team mate).
Furthermore, the GPDA can only really act in an advisory manner; the FIA would have had the final say on the revisions to the circuit via their control over circuit licences, so any comments by Schumacher as head of the GPDA would not have been binding. Schumacher would probably, therefore, have been called in to look at variants that were already likely to obtain approval from the FIA, which would have reduced any opportunities he might have had to intervene in the design of the circuit anyway even if he might have wanted to shape said circuit to favour him.

But didnt some drivers of the GPDA suggest that the alterations made did suit the Ferrari/Bridgstone combo as, to some cycnics, the F in FIA in those days stood for Ferrari?

[mario]

I believe that the consultations were over some modifications to the Nurburgring, mainly about the replacement of the old Castrol chicane with the modern layout and also a slight modification to the final corner (a small change in the radius of curvature).

However, it should be noted that it would not be surprising if Schumacher was consulted over the modifications to the circuit in 2002 - as the Chairman of the Grand Prix Drivers Association at the time, he would have probably been called in to act as the drivers representative and approve the changes to the circuit on their behalf.

Yep, that was it, thanks Mario. And clearly any input MSC gave as chairman of the GPDA would be completely impartial.

Wouldnt it?

His position would have obliged him to provide impartial feedback on the proposed revisions for the circuit, and he would have also faced scrutiny from the 20 other drivers who drove for the other teams at the time (if we take Rubens out of the equation as Schumacher's team mate).
Furthermore, the GPDA can only really act in an advisory manner; the FIA would have had the final say on the revisions to the circuit via their control over circuit licences, so any comments by Schumacher as head of the GPDA would not have been binding. Schumacher would probably, therefore, have been called in to look at variants that were already likely to obtain approval from the FIA, which would have reduced any opportunities he might have had to intervene in the design of the circuit anyway even if he might have wanted to shape said circuit to favour him.

But didnt some drivers of the GPDA suggest that the alterations made did suit the Ferrari/Bridgstone combo as, to some cycnics, the F in FIA in those days stood for Ferrari?

Oh, I do not doubt that some might have suggested that the modifications were made to suit Ferrari, though frankly Ferrari would hardly have needed the assistance given how they blew everybody away in 2002.
Were that the case, though, I would have expected any such benefit to be short lived - after all, the handling characteristics of both Ferrari's cars and Bridgestone's tyres would not stay the same from year to year, and it is unlikely that Ferrari would design their car solely around that particular complex. I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to suggest that was indeed the case, though would be interested if there was something that could indicate whether or not that was the case (e.g. the sector times showing Ferrari had a major advantage in that sector) - after all, Williams still seemed to have an edge over Ferrari in qualifying trim (they locked out the front row in qualifying), so it can't have hurt their rivals all that much.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.

[Gerudo Dragon]

Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.

That's the award for failing to qualify right? Now that HRT is dead, it does seem quite pointless.

[UncreativeUsername37]

Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.

That's the award for failing to qualify right? Now that HRT is dead, it does seem quite pointless.

It's the award for being last in qualifying. It's pointless to put it in because it's not actually a category and worth zero points.

[RonDenisDeletraz]

Attention F1 Rejects members: You are completely wasting your time putting the Alex Yoong award in your Predicament Predictions. Please stop. That is all.

That's the award for failing to qualify right? Now that HRT is dead, it does seem quite pointless.

It's the award for being last in qualifying. It's pointless to put it in because it's not actually a category and worth zero points.

Exactly. And people still don't seem to realise that it gives you absolutely no points.

[SgtPepper]

Oh, I do not doubt that some might have suggested that the modifications were made to suit Ferrari, though frankly Ferrari would hardly have needed the assistance given how they blew everybody away in 2002.
Were that the case, though, I would have expected any such benefit to be short lived - after all, the handling characteristics of both Ferrari's cars and Bridgestone's tyres would not stay the same from year to year, and it is unlikely that Ferrari would design their car solely around that particular complex. I don't think that there is conclusive evidence to suggest that was indeed the case, though would be interested if there was something that could indicate whether or not that was the case (e.g. the sector times showing Ferrari had a major advantage in that sector) - after all, Williams still seemed to have an edge over Ferrari in qualifying trim (they locked out the front row in qualifying), so it can't have hurt their rivals all that much.

Thanks for the clarification.

Channel with a bunch of videos suggesting why Schuey didn't deserve all the success he had.

Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.

These videos are engrossing - I can't tell if it's impressively thorough, or shockingly obsessive. There are some good points made in some of the videos, but other points are clearly just criticising for the sake of it. It worries me that I can do almost the same thing with each of Vettel's successes, and if life doesn't quite pan out how I wish, I can imagine myself in a decade's time, furrowed away with piles of dusty tapes in a dark room wishing to set the record straight.

In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill

[Gerudo Dragon]

In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill

Agreed, I hate it when people just make quick judgements off stats.

[Alextrax52]

In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill

Agreed, I hate it when people just make quick judgements off stats.

Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.

[good_Ralf]

Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.

You're very much correct, but on the other hand, when he was leading in Canada, I thought, given how badly the circuit wreaks havoc with Pirelli tyres, he would be passed for the win at some point but he just kept on pulling away and in the end he dominated.

[mario]

Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.

You're very much correct, but on the other hand, when he was leading in Canada, I thought, given how badly the circuit wreaks havoc with Pirelli tyres, he would be passed for the win at some point but he just kept on pulling away and in the end he dominated.

I would guess that it is not just the headline times that would make him think that, but the fact that Red Bull, and Vettel in particular, seemed much faster on their long runs (Vettel being, at one point, about 0.5s a lap faster than anybody else, and generally about 0.2s a lap). With Mercedes taking a bit of time to adjust to the new tyres and their rivals at Ferrari and Lotus slow in qualifying trim, they look like they have a pace advantage over a short run, and with tyre wear not looking that severe either, Lotus might not be able to gain so much in terms of tyre management.

[SgtPepper]

In regards to Schumacher, I certainly respect him and his talent, but to me statistics have always been nigh-on useless for measuring a driver's mettle (would anyone seriously argue Schumacher was seven times more talented than say Kimi or 3x that of Alonso?) and have never bought into the whole idea of 'there are no undeserving champions.' A rule I've noticed rarely applies to Button, Villeneuve or Hill

Agreed, I hate it when people just make quick judgements off stats.

Case in point: Someone who posts on Sky said zzzzzzzzzz Next Vettel Pole Next Vettel Win zzzzzzzzzzz just because he set the pace in FP1. I've reached the end of my tether with people like this who state that Vettel has the Race won before Qualifying has started or if he leads a race when there's still 55 laps to go or something.

If he qualifies P1 I'd say it's pretty understandable (I've done it myself a few times) as it so often does becomes a snoozefest, but I agree it's ludicrous to pay such attention to Practice in general, as it often doesn't relate that closely to quali/race performance, as we never know precisely which setup or testing the teams are electing to do.

[good_Ralf]

No wonder F1 Rejects titled the track the Hungasnoring.

[Salamander]

No wonder F1 Rejects titled the track the Hungasnoring.

... when did this happen? I don't remember ever hearing that term here.

[good_Ralf]

No wonder F1 Rejects titled the track the Hungasnoring.

... when did this happen? I don't remember ever hearing that term here.

Here.

[girry]

The eternal complainers who can't stand seeing their favorite driver not winning are ruining F1 at the moment..

..made the mistake of opening Autosport forums for the first time in months, and the first topic I see is a topic 'Is F1 boring this season?'....full of YES IT IS rants. Personally, I almost felt excited about the race tomorrow, but reading the thread put me back to 'meh' mode, as I kinda agreed to some of the points.

I bet if I didn't browse any F1 forums I'd think F1 is better than ever....

[Salamander]

The eternal complainers who can't stand seeing their favorite driver not winning are ruining F1 at the moment..

..made the mistake of opening Autosport forums for the first time in months, and the first topic I see is a topic 'Is F1 boring this season?'....full of YES IT IS rants. Personally, I almost felt excited about the race tomorrow, but reading the thread put me back to 'meh' mode, as I kinda agreed to some of the points.

I bet if I didn't browse any F1 forums I'd think F1 is better than ever....

This is why this is the only F1 forum I frequent. And why I tend to stay away from fan forums in general - they always find a way to suck the fun out of whatever it is I'm interested in.

[dr-baker]

The eternal complainers who can't stand seeing their favorite driver not winning are ruining F1 at the moment..

..made the mistake of opening Autosport forums for the first time in months, and the first topic I see is a topic 'Is F1 boring this season?'....full of YES IT IS rants. Personally, I almost felt excited about the race tomorrow, but reading the thread put me back to 'meh' mode, as I kinda agreed to some of the points.

I bet if I didn't browse any F1 forums I'd think F1 is better than ever....

This is why this is the only F1 forum I frequent.

This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.

[Shizuka]

This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.

Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.

[AdrianSutil]

This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.

Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.

Me too. I wont even browse the Autosport forum because I know I'll get a rage.

[Nuppiz]

This is the only F1 forum I have ever posted on and visited more than half-a-dozen times. And those that I have clicked through to more than once, have been because of links from this forum to threads of interest to other forumites.

Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.

Me too. I wont even browse the Autosport forum because I know I'll get a rage.

Add me to that list. Although I'm here more and more because of PMMF than actual F1 talk.

[watka]

Toro Rosso rant coming up...

I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?

[AdrianSutil]

Toro Rosso rant coming up...

I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?

You just answered your own question. Good qualifying counts for shite if you then can't race properly and rely on idiot team-strategists. A better driver would've set the car up to be more balanced for both quali and the race and then try to challenge the team over strategies. It does seem that ToroRosso tell their drivers when to pit and what to do, rather than letting their race drivers just... Race.

Now granted, you could say something like "Well, that's not the drivers fault" and you'd be right. But which people in every team are blamed first for a poor performance if something is not blatantly obvious beforehand (ie bad pitstop, being taken out by someone)? The drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I've come to like Ricciardo since I harshly slated him after his debut back in 2011 and I actually want him in the RedBull next year, but poor performances like that are going to get you negative feedback. He finished what? 12th? And that was after Rosberg, Di Resta and Sutil retired. If it wasn't for Force India having a bad day (who also got a lot of criticism, so Ricciardo is not alone) and Rosberg's retirement, Ricciardo would've finished 15th. Hardly worthy or any sort of praise is it?!

The spotlight is well and truly on him in the pitlane, journalists offices and RedBull minds and it's up to him to prove it.

[go_Rubens]

Same here. I'm not even registered at any other F1 forums.

Me too. I wont even browse the Autosport forum because I know I'll get a rage.

Add me to that list. Although I'm here more and more because of PMMF than actual F1 talk.

Same here. I try to indulge myself in a little bit of everything. PMMF, random motorsports, F1, rejects, etc. What more can you do? At least it's better than the Autosport forums which are no more than moldy food in a good old dust bin.

[watka]

Toro Rosso rant coming up...

I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?

You just answered your own question. Good qualifying counts for shite if you then can't race properly and rely on idiot team-strategists. A better driver would've set the car up to be more balanced for both quali and the race and then try to challenge the team over strategies. It does seem that ToroRosso tell their drivers when to pit and what to do, rather than letting their race drivers just... Race.

Now granted, you could say something like "Well, that's not the drivers fault" and you'd be right. But which people in every team are blamed first for a poor performance if something is not blatantly obvious beforehand (ie bad pitstop, being taken out by someone)? The drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I've come to like Ricciardo since I harshly slated him after his debut back in 2011 and I actually want him in the RedBull next year, but poor performances like that are going to get you negative feedback. He finished what? 12th? And that was after Rosberg, Di Resta and Sutil retired. If it wasn't for Force India having a bad day (who also got a lot of criticism, so Ricciardo is not alone) and Rosberg's retirement, Ricciardo would've finished 15th. Hardly worthy or any sort of praise is it?!

The spotlight is well and truly on him in the pitlane, journalists offices and RedBull minds and it's up to him to prove it.

So did you expect him to finish better than 12th from 8th on the grid? Tbh, I can't remember where the FIs were to comment on whether he'd have beaten them or not, but yes Rosberg would have beat him.

[the Masked Lapwing]

Toro Rosso rant coming up...

I think that since Ricciardo was first mentioned as a serious contender for the Red Bull drive next year, the inconsistency of people's opinions on Toro Rosso drivers have been exposed. Case in point, end of the 2011 season. Buemi and Alguersuari both get ditched after reasonable seasons with the team, justifiably a lot of people ask the question why. Some suggest that they, particularly Alguersuari, had the potential to be Red Bull drivers. Fast forward to now. Ricciardo is strongly linked with the Red Bull seat, he's done at least as well as Buemi and Alguersuari, if not better (seems to have better one lap pace than either of them and was also very competent when driving for HRT). However he is being almost universally written off here as not being good enough for Red Bull. Sure, Raikkonen is a far stronger option, but why the harsh criticism? I've looked at some the ROTR and driver rating comments and a lot of people are saying he had a 3 to 5 out of 10 race weekend. He got into Q3 again, and slid back a little (partly due to poor team strategy) to where about the car should be, what's so poor about that? Yes, 5 out of 10 if I was feeling particularly negative, but I'd be ignoring qualifying. What's the deal?

You just answered your own question. Good qualifying counts for shite if you then can't race properly and rely on idiot team-strategists. A better driver would've set the car up to be more balanced for both quali and the race and then try to challenge the team over strategies. It does seem that ToroRosso tell their drivers when to pit and what to do, rather than letting their race drivers just... Race.

Now granted, you could say something like "Well, that's not the drivers fault" and you'd be right. But which people in every team are blamed first for a poor performance if something is not blatantly obvious beforehand (ie bad pitstop, being taken out by someone)? The drivers.

Don't get me wrong, I've come to like Ricciardo since I harshly slated him after his debut back in 2011 and I actually want him in the RedBull next year, but poor performances like that are going to get you negative feedback. He finished what? 12th? And that was after Rosberg, Di Resta and Sutil retired. If it wasn't for Force India having a bad day (who also got a lot of criticism, so Ricciardo is not alone) and Rosberg's retirement, Ricciardo would've finished 15th. Hardly worthy or any sort of praise is it?!

The spotlight is well and truly on him in the pitlane, journalists offices and RedBull minds and it's up to him to prove it.

So did you expect him to finish better than 12th from 8th on the grid? Tbh, I can't remember where the FIs were to comment on whether he'd have beaten them or not, but yes Rosberg would have beat him.

Di Resta's tyres fell off the cliff before he retired and was losing time relative to Ricciardo (and holding up Vergne quite badly), so there was no way he was going to beat him. Sutil went out too early to tell, but I think we was somewhere near Vergne at the time.

[mario]

Di Resta's tyres fell off the cliff before he retired and was losing time relative to Ricciardo (and holding up Vergne quite badly), so there was no way he was going to beat him. Sutil went out too early to tell, but I think we was somewhere near Vergne at the time.

Sutil and Vergne were running different tyre strategies - Sutil started the race on the medium tyre, as opposed to Vergne on the soft, so Sutil was still yet to pit when he retired on lap 19 (having worked his way into 10th by that point). Vergne ran behind Sutil from lap 2 to 8, but that early stop left him bottled up behind di Resta in 17th place - I suspect, therefore, that Sutil would probably have remained ahead of Vergne if nothing else, though probably not that much further up the road come the end of the race.

[AdrianSutil]

I think people are getting a little confused with what I meant. I was saying that if Force India had their 'normal' race day (running in the points) instead of what we saw, Ricciardo would've finished 15th. Therefore, criticism is justified because they should've been In the points. The car is clearly good enough yet ToroRosso got beaten by MALDONADO!!

[Ferrim]

Maybe. But you don't win 91 Grands Prix and 7 World Championships without a lot of talent.

Yeah, I don't disagree with that comment. Schumacher was a very fast driver. But the person who made the videos is clearly anti-Schumacher.

Holy jumping, 13 hours of video???

I've been watching these videos and I must say that there is something there that doesn't add up. Don't know if it's the work of a single guy, but let's assume so. The guy seems to have a very good knowledge of F1 stuff and, for the most part, the videos are very informative. 90% of the time you can say that the comments are even objective, ie. just explaining what is going on in the video. They are nicely edited as well. They could support an argument that Schumacher was lucky to win as much as he did (not that I think that making such an argument deserves or needs so many hours and work of video editing, but still). But then, here and there, the guy inserts ludicrous claims that I find completely at odds with the rest of his work. It doesn't seem the work of a fool or of someone who doesn't actively follow F1, except for those bits. Usually, when you are in front of a hater it very quickly becomes obvious that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and his knowledge remains superficial; if he ever develops into a knowledgeable fan, into the kind of guy who would upload edited F1 videos of old races to the net, he understands how wrong he was to begin with and, while he may still dislike a good driver, he's happy to accept him as such.

[watka]

The car is clearly good enough yet ToroRosso got beaten by MALDONADO!!

When you put it like that, I see your point

[SgtPepper]

But then, here and there, the guy inserts ludicrous claims that I find completely at odds with the rest of his work. It doesn't seem the work of a fool or of someone who doesn't actively follow F1, except for those bits.

I'm still working my way through them. Do you have any examples that stood out in particular?

[Ben Gilbert]

But then, here and there, the guy inserts ludicrous claims that I find completely at odds with the rest of his work. It doesn't seem the work of a fool or of someone who doesn't actively follow F1, except for those bits.

I'm still working my way through them. Do you have any examples that stood out in particular?

Not sure if it's entirely ludicrous, but their comments regarding the 1998 Belgian Grand Prix, and their description of Jordan's orders for Ralf Schumacher to hold station and let Damon Hill take the win (and, ostensibly, prevent a possible accident should they be allowed to race) as 'perfectly reasonable'. This after they have spent many videos demonising Michael for every single instance of team orders being used in his favour, and continue to do so in every future one. And have made much mention of the 'no manipulation' rule imposed after the McLaren debacle in Melbourne, and have criticised Ferrari for flouting it, yet seem to have forgotten this rule completely when 'teh greetest team EVAR and di hooole reezon dat SHOEMACKER woz ny gud on hiz daybu' JORDAN flouted it.

Granted, their support of Jordan's orders seem to be more of a response to Michael's (fantastically hypocritical) comments of disgust at Ralf not being allowed to race for the win.

Then again, it isn't a clear-cut situation.

Was Damon Hill right to suggest such orders? Eh... his whole elaboration over the radio of 'if we race, we could end up with nothing' does put the team's success first, but at the same time it's not too much of a leap to see it as covering a self-serving desire to win, the very thing that the videomaker accuses Schumacher of at every opportunity. Bad taste in mouth, and possible murky motivations, aside, though, I think he was at least justified in suggesting it, though it probably wasn't the fairest course of action.

Were the team correct in actually issuing the orders? In my opinion, yes; there may have been a ban on such 'manipulation' at the time, but I can allow Jordan to break it if Ferrari are going to (and do it repeatedly, and utterly unsubtly).

Did Ralf have any right to feel aggrieved about the orders? Yes. Obviously.

Was Michael being hypocritical when he made his comments? Good BATHPLUG yes!

But, again, were his comments in some way correct? Yes.

But whoever makes these videos cannot allow a grey area to exist: Michael Schumacher is ALWAYS wrong, Jordan (and indeed anyone attempting to beat Schumacher) are ALWAYS right.