Op-Ed: Newey has the wrong ‘dangerous’ man
January 16, 2010 by Negative Camber
Filed under F1B Op-Ed, Negative Camber, Parc Fermé, Top Story
As discussed here at F1B early today by our very own Victoria, it appears that the comparisons have begun and the dredging up of veteran Michael Schumacher’s less savory exploits has begun.
According to Maurice Hamilton, legendary designer Adrian Newey has unleashed a scathing indictment on the returning 7-time world champion Schumacher. In Newey’s opinion, Schumachers deliberate collision with Damon Hill and Jacques Villeneuve was worse than the Crash-gate saga that saw Nelson piquet Jr. clout a wall in order to help his teammate win.
Those are strong words and as Victoria adequately pointed out, it is odd timing indeed. But when do we talk about the Schumacher legacy? When do we bring up his “incidents”? Is there a good time to start the head games of F1? A time when you start debasing your competition?
Schumacher collided with Hill and Villeneuve. There is little doubt in that and conventional belief is that it was deliberate. I won’t argue the merits of exhaustive studies, accusations and opinion on this subject but is Newey correct?
Even though I am a Schumacher fan, I have to say that Newey is probably correct. The “danger” of the Piquet Jr. incident, in my opinion, has been overplayed for political reasons. Could it have been dangerous to him, course workers or fans? Sure. Was it? No. I have argued that it is no where near the level of danger than when the late Ayrton Senna took aim at Alain Prost at 150mph to secure the win.
Similarly, I believe Schumacher punting another driver at speed is more dangerous as well. When you engage another driver the energy dissipated is two-fold and the situation offers another person, most intimately, to be harmed in the matter. Multiply the potential flying parts as well and the fact that safety has greatly improved in that area since the Hill and Villeneuve collisions.
Having said that, the Piquet Jr. incident has political overtones with the intent on making the potential crime bigger than the actual crime in order to destroy the life of Flavio Briatore. It was intended to add gravity to the crime and heap reckless behavior and careless disregard for human life on top of cheating. I find that notion a bridge too far.
Returning to the Schumacher incidents—they both were serious. They both could have been lethal as we know that two open-wheel cars can launch themselves when they touch. They can get lethally close to the other drivers head as we saw in the 2007 Australian Grand Prix with David Coulthard and Alexander Wurz. Wurz nearly lost his head when Coulthard’s car slid over the top of his after the two touched wheels.
With that in mind the speed and potential energy in Schumacher’s collision with Hill and Villeneuve was far less than the 150mph collision of Senna and Prost. So who could Newey be leveraging this comment toward for potential danger? I think Senna would make a better candidate—Senna isn’t contesting the 2010 season as a competitor to Newey’s Red Bull Racing so let’s start the head games early. There is one thing that Newey may have forgotten about Schumacher, head games don’t really affect him.
The entire United Kingdom has been accused of disliking the German but that didn’t bother him in the least. I doubt being called more dangerous than Piquet Jr. and Crash-gate will either. Oh…one other thing? Like Coulthard is one to talk. Spa 1998 Anyone? Anyone?
The detractors of Schumacher will loath the reasoning here but let us not forget that Coulthard’s description of the German being ruthless is a description of the driver and the era from whence he came. Senna was no less brutal in his pursuits and yet few label him negatively. Both men drove to win and sometimes it has brought the best and worst out of them. Piquet Jr? Well…that was just nonsense.
Lets file this under the account Fanboy@Defence.com Shall we :-?
LOL. I knew you’d like my defense. :) Hey, even as a fan I agree that it was more dangerous than Piquet’s deal. What do you want from me? :)
Schumi can never use Prost-Senna incidents to justify his indiscretions. That was a earlier era where it was more about racing, Drivers were “Racers” and like true men settled their differences on track.
Schumi has made in career in era where F1 is more about Politics and what happens between the two race weekends. Schumi and his team (read Todt/Brawn) have been leading exponents of the “New F1″. Piquet Jr was merely a case of Dirty Harrys in F1 gone out of control.
Like SJ had written elsewhere in different article, what F1 needs is major overhaul, a complete destruction before the new beginning. I am sure Schumi’s return will complete the complete destruction phase where Politicking and Off track bickering will take F1 to new bottoms, before F1 will reinvent itself and soar high.
Till then Gentlemen start your engines and let the soap opera begin(after the race)!!!
Hmmm. We don’t agree. I think Schumi was of the same cloth with Senna and Prost et. al. He came from that perspective and took F1 to its further conclusion. Cars hitting cars is the same across decades. How dangerous that actually is could be argued in the new era but the farther you go back, the more dangerous it was.
Guys check out vipf1 dot com they are giving away paddock club passes to the abu dhabi F1 2010 Grand Prix.
DXB James
Oh no not that “Senna was bad also” argument. O! got tired of hearing it. Look mommy that guy was bad too why can’t i go hitting also?
Such a fanboy article this was.
Also i have to at that Prost wasn’t ruthless as Schumi at all and Senna handled his aggression a lot better. He was hard as nail to pass but didn’t made a happid of pushing others of track like Schumi did when they where side by side with him. And the 1990 incident wasn’t as simple as today people say it is. It wasn’t just Senna deciding to hit Prost so he can win. He was screwed by Balestre who changed the place for pole position since he disliked him because of what happened in 1989. So Senna decited that he was gonna try and get first out of that corner no matter what because he was sick of the political games. He saw the open door and he wasn’t willing to lift, Prost never thought Senna was so determined and tried to close the door and they collided.
On the other hand we have Schumi who wasn’t getting screwed by political games but was screwing others with them. If both behaviors where criminal well Senna could be the guy who got harassed by the police and did something bad while Schumi is like the mafioso who has the police in his payroll so he can do bad things.
The difference is clear to me.
Totally agree:
<>
<>
And just curious Flabio Briatore was Schumacher´s manager and team boss when he make the deliberate collision. I don´t think is a fact of casuallity.
If Briatore returns to F1 he will following the same patter again and again. The real DANGEROUS MAN is Flavio Briatore.
I actually think that Schumacher would have done exactly the same as Senna, they both had the same, I am the best so its my right to win thought process.It was a bit of a different time as well as I would rate Prost as a more equal competitor than Hill.But the act was exactly the same, ” I will crash him and win the championship” there is not a doubt in my mind Schmacher purposly ran into Hill. With the Senna incident I thought Prost made an error in not expecting it, where as Hill would not have anyway of predicting Schumachers move.
The great thing is that we will not all agree on Schumacher. I am a fan and have been since the debut at Spa. But I think there are differences in taking aim at someone at 150mph and punting someone at a corner.
Paul raises a good point that Prost should have expected it while Hill and JV may bot have. I suspect Schumi would have done the same thing but that’s supposition. What I do think is that Schumi is from an aggressive driver era like Senna. I think back to our conversation with Tommy Byrne who made it very clear that it was commonly done back then.
Some of it depends on what you feel is good racing and many don’t like full-contact racing as it is dangerous. No argument from me but that is how Senna and Schumi rolled. Having said that, I loved watching both of them work their art.
I’d argue driver’s are conditioned into what they are entering – Schumacher started in F1 and took lessons from the drivers that won which was to be aggressive.
As far as 1994 was concerned I would imagine that Schumacher would have been extremely furious that a decision to ban him from 3 races would cost him the drivers championship… i think that would affect virtually any driver’s psyche!!
(if i’m honest i’m also a Schumacher fan so i guess i’m biased)
I can’t believe I’m going to write this, JC, but I agree with you entirely on 94. Schumacher clearly deserved that title, and was nearly robbed of it. The history books are not really besmirched. Now, I feel obliged to balance this concerning outburst with some healthy bile.
The problem with Adelaide is that the incident itself just left such a sour taste in the mouth for me – Schumacher had binned it, unnecessarily. He had lost on the day. His car was already crippled and he knew it. Even in the red mist, and despite him being by far the best driver of the season, that’s low.
And I really never forgave Schumi for proving himself prepared to have another go – albeit unsuccessfully. But then I have always followed Williams, so I am entirely biased too :)