Damon Hill says "Schumacher had unfair advantage"

[Everso Biggyballies]

Bottom post of the previous page:

Added to their cheat (re)fuel system ..... Anyway the topic is more related to the Ferrari years

[kals]

Added to their cheat (re)fuel system ..... Anyway the topic is more related to the Ferrari years

Don't forget about what happened during 2005, Michelin built a better tyre for the single-tyre race format and Ferrari / Bridgestone floundered. Subsequently both protested to the FIA for a return to the pre-2005 tyre rules, which was granted. In 2006 Ferrari and Bridgestone suddenly returned to form. But still lost.

Then what about the times Ferrari and Schumacher received preferential from race stewards and the FIA...

- Italy 2006, Massa and Alonso in qualifying - Alonso receives penalty
- Hungary 2006, Schumacher skipping the chicane late in the race - maintains position, no penalty
- Turkey 2005, Schumacher turns into Webber - no penalty
- Australia 2005, Schumacher runs Heidfeld off the road - no penalty
- Imola 2004, runs Montoya off the road on lap 1 - no penalty
- Indy 2003, Montoya's clash with Barrichello - Montoya penalised
- Hungary/Italy 2003, Ferrari and Bridgestone complains to FIA about Michelin tyres
- Silverstone 2003, pushes Alonso off the circuit on lap 1 - no penalty
- Brazil 2003, spins off under double-waved yellow flags - no penalty
- Silverstone 1998, wins race despite not taking drive-through penalty - no penalty

I'm sure I've missed a few, so feel free to add in anything.

Unless I'm mistaken, the only proper penalties I can think of that Schumi and Ferrari received were Monaco 2006 and what followed after Jerez 1997, but even that wasn't really a penalty was it? He kept his race wins, trophies and records, Ferrari kept it's constructors points.

Now before anyone suggests I'm bias against Schumi, I'll add a disclaimer and reminder that I was a big Schumi fan. These situations started to make it hard to like him and his attitude against his rivals.

The point I'm making with this list is that it appeared to show favoritism to Schumacher and Ferrari by the FIA and introduced the world to the joke that was FIArrari.

[Everso Biggyballies]

China 2005, Schumacher drives into Albers on the warm up lap.... both drivers cars too damaged to take the start. Both drivers start race from pitlane in spare cars, but no penalty to Schumacher for his wreckless driving / driving without due care and attention.

[MonteCristo]

- Italy 2006, Massa and Alonso in qualifying - Alonso receives penalty
- Hungary 2006, Schumacher skipping the chicane late in the race - maintains position, no penalty
- Turkey 2005, Schumacher turns into Webber - no penalty
- Australia 2005, Schumacher runs Heidfeld off the road - no penalty
- Imola 2004, runs Montoya off the road on lap 1 - no penalty
- Indy 2003, Montoya's clash with Barrichello - Montoya penalised
- Hungary/Italy 2003, Ferrari and Bridgestone complains to FIA about Michelin tyres
- Silverstone 2003, pushes Alonso off the circuit on lap 1 - no penalty
- Brazil 2003, spins off under double-waved yellow flags - no penalty
- Silverstone 1998, wins race despite not taking drive-through penalty - no penalty

I'm sure I've missed a few, so feel free to add in anything.

Adelaide 1994... Worse than Jerez. But not Ferrari years, obviously.

[Everso Biggyballies]

Interestingly Michael got DSQ'd from Spa in 1994 over a 'plank' anomoly, having his win taken from him. This was of course in the Benetton.
Me thinks had he been driving a Ferrari he would likely not have been DSQd and just given a slapped wrist.

[kals]

All true but I was only focusing on Schumi's Ferrari years.

[Michkov]

let's be honest, all this talk about traction control... and what would it be worth over a lap? a tenth? two tenths perhaps?

I'll buy it even if it's half a tenth a lap. Probably even better since it's not that obvious on the timing sheets. For me the real value comes over a race distance. TC should allow you to run tyres longer or harder for the same distance. Also taking strain of a drivers mind, allowing for more resources to be used for racing instead of wrestling the car. So over a distance it's going to make a much bigger difference then over a single lap. You just have to look at the first 4 Qualys vs Race results.

[LaraCroft2016]

"Hungary/Italy 2003, Ferrari and Bridgestone complains to FIA about Michelin tyres"

Kimi could have been the champion in 2003 if it's not for that Ferrari and Bridgestone's complain that gave to Schumacher two wins in a row, it could have been great but not, FIA was in favor of Ferrari.

[kals]

"Hungary/Italy 2003, Ferrari and Bridgestone complains to FIA about Michelin tyres"

Kimi could have been the champion in 2003 if it's not for that Ferrari and Bridgestone's complain that gave to Schumacher two wins in a row, it could have been great but not, FIA was in favor of Ferrari.

Kimi or Montoya could have been champion. At that point of the season Montoya was the man of the moment and was Michael's biggest threat. Kimi had a great start to 2003 and was consistent throughout, however the latter part he started to suffer from the fact that McLaren were still running an updated 2002 car which didn't have the same performance as Williams or Ferrari.

[LaraCroft2016]

But Montoya was gonna have problems in Japan, so the real candidate was Kimi at the end.

[kals]

But Montoya was gonna have problems in Japan, so the real candidate was Kimi at the end.

Speed and wins-wise, Montoya was Michael's closest challenger throughout the season.

Points-wise, Kimi was incredibly consistent through the year yet needed to win at Suzuka with Schumi DNF'ing in order to win the title. Montoya was out of contention after USA.

Tyres-wise, both Williams and McLaren were impacted by what happened post-Hungary. To suggest Kimi could have been champion but not Montoya because of the tyre situation is absurd, for the reasons I explained in my previous post.

[LaraCroft2016]

Maybe it is absurd but Montoya was gonna have engine problems in the last race, so he couldn't be champion because of that :/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXk3h4YAJPg

Montoya says in an interview "things happens for a reason, I was leading in Japan, losing the title leading would have hurt more".
Schumacher was helped in Italy 2003 for that Frentzen's Sauber ferrari too, do you agree?

[kals]

Maybe it is absurd but Montoya was gonna have engine problems in the last race, so he couldn't be champion because of that :/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXk3h4YAJPg

Montoya says in an interview "things happens for a reason, I was leading in Japan, losing the title leading would have hurt more".
Schumacher was helped in Italy 2003 for that Frentzen's Sauber ferrari too, do you agree?

Frentzen in Monza, what do you mean?

I don't agree with the point you are making. What you are suggesting is that had Michelin not been forced to change their tyre construction after Hungary, and each race following (apart from Japan) been exactly as was, then (only) Kimi would have had a chance to beat Schumi to the title in Japan. Not only does that make no sense, it's not how things work. Have you ever heard of the butterfly effect?

Let's assume the tyres had stayed unchanged, Bridgestone and Ferrari didn't lodge an FIA enquiry. At that point in the season Williams was the strongest package, McLaren were on a downward trajectory speed-wise because they'd reached the full development limit of their 2002 car (yes 2002, remember they never launched a 2003 car). This is best told in results and points:

Monaco to Hungary - 8 races
Schumacher - 34 points, 3 podiums inc. 1 win
Kimi - 30 points, 4 podiums
Montoya - 58 points, 8 podiums inc. 2 wins

The likely outcome of Monza would have been a Montoya victory, with Kimi and Schumi sharing the podium. USA is up in the air because of the weather. Yet you're saying that the results of Monza and USA would have been the same, but not Japan?

The reality is though that both Montoya AND Kimi lost the championship because of their non-scores. Three for each versus one for Schumi. To make matters worse for Kimi is the mistakes he made during qualifying at both Australia and Barcelona, arguably costing himself victory in Melbourne while his mistake in Barcelona meant he clattered into stalled Pizzonia at the start. Montoya cost himself a victory at Melbourne thanks to that late race spin, then there was the dubious decision at Indianapolis.

So that's it. I don't agree with you. To assume that season would have played out the same (bar Japan...) had Michelin not changed their tyres after Hungary is absurd.

[Everso Biggyballies]

I agree with Kals. The argument re HHF seems to me a bit like those who insist Glock won the 2008 title for Lewis and lost it for Felipe.
Looking for conspiracies that don't exist and are natural motor racing occurrences.

[LaraCroft2016]

So, Frentzen didn't help Schumacher win in Italy 2003 blocking Montoya for several laps?

[Everso Biggyballies]

I am not denying Montoya had trouble passing HHF, but to say it was a deliberate act by HHF aimed at helping Schumacher win is a huge call. HHF was more likely making it difficult for JPM to maximise his own result. The drivers each have their own agendas and priorities to maximise their results for themselves and their own teams, not to help another team.

More to the point, HHF was not the best of friends with Schumacher, so very unlikely to go out of his way to assist MS.... remember, HHF was going out with (engaged to?) Corina, who Michael 'took' from him and eventually married.