Timing for Rubens's book

[Bagwan]

First off , I can't believe there hasn't been a thread about Rubens and his tell-all book .

But , that's not what this is about .
Rubinho is acting like an ex-driver , before we've heard whether he's in or not .
David wrote one early , and it helped , I suppose , keep him in .
Key , for me , was that he expressed his belief he was #2 .

That's the same tid-bit they want from Rubens , and speaking of being asked about his contract during a race will make it an instant success on the bookstand , before it's written .

Is he done , or is this another way of showing he can make the lines of copy swell at the drop of a helmet ?
Surely that's a major bonus for any team , let alone the burn on the front-running red opponents .

Rubens holds the cards .
I hope he stays .

[F1boat]

Well, what is he saying about the US Grand Prix? ;)

[goodf1fun]

Why he stay in ferrari then? because he was overrated, payed good money,
the car they provide him was the only one in his career that he was able to win races.

If he wasn't in ferrari then his career was going to finish until 2003-2004.
I am angry with those comments after so many years he spent in ferrari.
He should have left the team earlier if he got the balls but he didn't. Cry poor rubens cry...

[Knock-on]

Rubin is a gentleman that played a solid #2 role at Ferrari. We all know this.

If he retires, I wish him well.

[pino]

Rubin is a gentleman that played a solid #2 role at Ferrari. We all know this.

If he retires, I wish him well.

This gentleman should have talk and complain whilst He was there (Driving a great car and get lot of $$$ as well) not now :down: I've lost all respect for him after this...

[goodf1fun]

i hope he loses his seat in 2009

he is not a sportsman when he talks like that.

[Knock-on]

This gentleman should have talk and complain whilst He was there (Driving a great car and get lot of $$$ as well) not now :down: I've lost all respect for him after this...

Come on Pino. He was a good company man for Ferrari. It was obvious he was paid to be a #2 and only a fool would argue he was on an even standing as Schumy.

I appreciate what you say about he should have complained at the time but his contract was on the line and driving for Ferrari and finishing 2nd was obviously more attractive to him than fighting for the lower places in other teams.

He's not the only one to have done this and won't be the last.

[leopard]

In respect of Ruben, it's already beyond dispute that he has successfully played the job of supportive driver, contributing maximum dedication to the team. Neither It will surprise Ferrari nor they take it a problem, otherwise to acknowledge the truth whenever on his leave elsewhere, Ruben will disclose the case to public.

[ioan]

'At the time Schumacher said that he had been told to win and did not have much time to think about it but Todt said that the drivers were told as early as lap 63 - eight laps from home - that they needed to switch places. Barrichello has confirmed Todt's story but told the Brazilian TV show Fantastico that he only backed off because he was being threatened by the team. Barrichello said that he was radioed and told that it was "important for the championship" and that on the last lap he was given an ultimatum.
"I was told to think about my contract," Barrichello said. "For me that was an order: it is better for you to lift your foot, otherwise you are going to be going home". www.grandprix.com (http://www.grandprix.com)


Another thing that has come out from Rubens book is the above. He has shyed away from talking too much about Ferrari since his departure, but this seems almost unbelievable!

Nothing new.
Ferrari sacked Prost because of his behavior so they were not going to tolerate Rubens' either.
Heck even MS had to yield to Irvine when asked to do it.

[Knock-on]

Would have loved to have had the full inside story at Ferrari though ;)

[ArrowsFA1]

Ferrari sacked Prost because of his behavior so they were not going to tolerate Rubens' either.
But they did. It's not as if Ferrari sacked him after Austria.

[pino]

Come on Pino. He was a good company man for Ferrari. It was obvious he was paid to be a #2 and only a fool would argue he was on an even standing as Schumy.

I appreciate what you say about he should have complained at the time but his contract was on the line and driving for Ferrari and finishing 2nd was obviously more attractive to him than fighting for the lower places in other teams.



No excuse knockie, Rubens knew he was a 2nd driver, he accepted that and got good money for it, so why attack Ferrari now about something he did agree when signing his contract ? :crazy:

[ShiftingGears]

Nothing new.
Ferrari sacked Prost because of his behavior so they were not going to tolerate Rubens' either.
Heck even MS had to yield to Irvine when asked to do it.

IMO firing Prost for telling the truth was one of the worst decisions Ferrari ever made. He mightn'tve stayed, but they should've damn well tried to convince him. In the end Ferrari paid for it given that they didn't have another first class driver for another five years.

[Knock-on]

No excuse knockie, Rubens knew he was a 2nd driver, he accepted that and got good money for it, so why attack Ferrari now about something he did agree when signing his contract ? :crazy:

Ahhh, I see where you're coming from.

Could it be that Rubins was under the impression that he would be allowed to race Schumy until there was no mathamatical chance but found out otherwise?

Doubt it but you never know?

Ahhh, I see where you're coming from.

Could it be that Rubins was under the impression that he would be allowed to race Schumy until there was no mathamatical chance but found out otherwise?

Doubt it but you never know?

If he was under that impression, he was wrong. It evidently wasn't included in his contract, otherwise there would have been no "think about your contract" remark.

Irvine was told to let Schumacher past in France 1999, for a 5th place. In doing so, Eddie also let Ralf past, losing two positions, which turned out to have been the number of points he lost the title by.

Eddie has never cried about it, never bleated about it and never claimed anything other than he was at Ferrari to do a Number 2 role.

If, and I personally find it incredulous that somebody could be so naive, Ruben's ever thought that he was not going to receive the same treatment as Irvine and not be expected to be the Number 2, then he has only himself to blame.

[wedge]

Why he stay in ferrari then?

Knowing he was still at his peak he was probably hoping for Schumi to break his leg again mid-season.


This gentleman should have talk and complain whilst He was there (Driving a great car and get lot of $$$ as well) not now :down: I've lost all respect for him after this...

Why? Does he still drive for Ferrari? F1 is under much greater media scrutiny today. From James Allen's recent book about Schumacher I get the impression more people ask him about Schumacher than himself - and even in the book he quoted as saying he would reveal more things later in book.

Rubens is an honest man. He didn't complain but only in his last year with Ferrari when he had enough. The truth is out there and Rubens wants to tell it.

F1 can be secretive business the best of times and a huge subject and the enigma that is Michael Schumacher there is a huge appetite from the public to learn more about the man.

[ioan]

F1 can be secretive business the best of times and a huge subject and the enigma that is Michael Schumacher there is a huge appetite from the public to learn more about the man.

Those who really wanted to know more about MS did their homework while he was driving in F1 and they managed to know plenty about him.
Those who would buy Rubens' book for quotes like the one we are talking about aren't the people who want to know more about MS, they are the people who are searching for whatever reason to say "I told you so!".

[ioan]

IMO firing Prost for telling the truth was one of the worst decisions Ferrari ever made. He mightn'tve stayed, but they should've damn well tried to convince him. In the end Ferrari paid for it given that they didn't have another first class driver for another five years.

It's about corporate policy.
If a driver isn't happy and badmouths the car and the team he can hardly expect that the mechanics and engineers will try to do any better in order to help him (cause he's the one earning the big money and standing on the podium).

McLaren and Montoya parted ways because they weren't happy with each other, the same with Alonso (he stayed till the end of the season cause he had a chance to win the title).

I don't know if Prost might have stayed or not, the team wasn't interested to play along with him.

[ioan]

But they did. It's not as if Ferrari sacked him after Austria.

He did give up his position in Austria, didn't he?! He did accept what the team asked him to do and proved to be fitted to do the job he was payed for. So what was there that Ferrari should have been unhappy with?

[markabilly]

If he was under that impression, he was wrong. It evidently wasn't included in his contract, otherwise there would have been no "think about your contract" remark.

Irvine was told to let Schumacher past in France 1999, for a 5th place. In doing so, Eddie also let Ralf past, losing two positions, which turned out to have been the number of points he lost the title by.

Eddie has never cried about it, never bleated about it and never claimed anything other than he was at Ferrari to do a Number 2 role.

If, and I personally find it incredulous that somebody could be so naive, Ruben's ever thought that he was not going to receive the same treatment as Irvine and not be expected to be the Number 2, then he has only himself to blame.


I always thought that the last thing that would happen was for someone other than MS to win a wdc, especially eddie, at Ferrari.

After all, who could you compare MS to control over a team to??
MS was the last and only driver after Jack Brabham to have much control over a team while still racing as a driver....(and even Jack let denny win one, in 1967, i think)

[ArrowsFA1]

He did give up his position in Austria, didn't he?! He did accept what the team asked him to do and proved to be fitted to do the job he was payed for. So what was there that Ferrari should have been unhappy with?
Perhaps for waiting until the very last moment to hand the win to MS. I thought at the time that Rubens making the order that obvious contributed to the controversy. I don't imagine Ferrari were too happy about that. Ferrari were praised by some for being open about the order, and yet it was Rubens who gave them no option.

[wedge]

Those who really wanted to know more about MS did their homework while he was driving in F1 and they managed to know plenty about him.
Those who would buy Rubens' book for quotes like the one we are talking about aren't the people who want to know more about MS, they are the people who are searching for whatever reason to say "I told you so!".

Not at all.

F1 can be a secretive world and there is a huge thirst for information. Whether it be Schumi, Mansell, G. Villenueve, Clark, etc; I could read 3 books on the same drivers and still not feel fully satisfied at knowing who they really were.

[wedge]

Perhaps for waiting until the very last moment to hand the win to MS. I thought at the time that Rubens making the order that obvious contributed to the controversy. I don't imagine Ferrari were too happy about that. Ferrari were praised by some for being open about the order, and yet it was Rubens who gave them no option.

I have to admit that threw me back a bit when I first heard it. Regardless, still a bad decision by Ferrari and Rubens should've had the win, IMHO. (Even though we've discussed this about 6 months ago, me thinks I've opened a can of worms,....)

[Easy Drifter]

I find it sort of ironic that there are constant complaints about drivers being bland and towing the party line that when one of them does not, albeit a few years later, many have a hissy fit.
Oh well.

[Knock-on]

Those who really wanted to know more about MS did their homework while he was driving in F1 and they managed to know plenty about him.
Those who would buy Rubens' book for quotes like the one we are talking about aren't the people who want to know more about MS, they are the people who are searching for whatever reason to say "I told you so!".

But some people have claimed for years that MS won his titles on merit alone.

Surely this contradicts that with Rubins admitting he had a clear #2 role written into his contract.

But some people have claimed for years that MS won his titles on merit alone.

Surely this contradicts that with Rubins admitting he had a clear #2 role written into his contract.

That is the most ridiculously unintelligent comment.

How did Schumi get to the position whereby he could dictate the terms of his team-mates contract?

On merit. That's how.

[Knock-on]

That is the most ridiculously unintelligent comment.

How did Schumi get to the position whereby he could dictate the terms of his team-mates contract?

On merit. That's how.

Insulting people doesn't change the fact that it's true. Be dismissive if you want but you know Schumacher had a priviliged position over Rubins.

You might as well argue the sky is made of marshmellow

[ioan]

But some people have claimed for years that MS won his titles on merit alone.

Surely this contradicts that with Rubins admitting he had a clear #2 role written into his contract.

Like if Rubens would have won the championship if MS didn't win in Austria! :rolleyes:
FYI MS let Rubens win 2 races that same year to pay him back for what happened in Austria.

I'm sure you can do better than what you wrote in that post of yours.

[wedge]

But some people have claimed for years that MS won his titles on merit alone.

Surely this contradicts that with Rubins admitting he had a clear #2 role written into his contract.

It was never explicitly stated in the contract, but the damage was more psychological. In James Allen's recent book Rubens referred to Schumi being the centre of attention, having rights to the spare car, even having a bigger bedroom in the motorhome!

Rubens joining Ferrari genuinely trying to beat Schumi within the Ferrari-Schumi system, he worked extremely hard on trying different set ups to look for different angles at beating Schumi. He never complained publicly one bit about the Austria debacle - that is something that has to be commended for by the Tifosi when the likes of Herbert and Prost make public criticisms and about their team mates (Schumi = Mr Mega) and teams (Ferrari = truck) respectively.

Schumi had every right to be #1 but the ways and means appear questionable, so much so that its in the public interest, IMHO. For example Johnny Herbert gave an excellent interview recently to Motorsport magazine. At the start of the '95 season he and Schumi had a discussion regarding sharing data and then suddenly at Briatore's behest Herbert was never allowed to view Schumi's data but Schumi could see Herbert's which culminated in Herbert's Mr Mega rant that year. All the while Briatore behaved and treated Herbert very coldly.

[f1rocks]

Like if Rubens would have won the championship if MS didn't win in Austria! :rolleyes:
FYI MS let Rubens win 2 races that same year to pay him back for what happened in Austria.

I'm sure you can do better than what you wrote in that post of yours.

It was actually 3 races. MS gave Rubens the US win. He also did not challenge Rubens at Nurburgring, Hungary and Monza...

One thing continues to bother me...At Austria 2002 MS had to sit behind Rubens for 10 seconds in a stacked pit stop. That is due to Sato's accident, Otherwise he may very well have jumped Rubens at the pits. Then he came back stuck behind Ralf. But he still caught up with Rubens..Why do people claim that Rubens was quicker. MS would have beaten him in a straight fight anyway like he did so many times..

The same damn thing happened at Austria 2001 where MS was overtaking JPM and they both collided which handed Rubens the lead.

In both Austria 2001 and Austria 2002 Rubens was actually lucky to be ahead of MS..

[HenryM]

in the same interview rubens say that he know that schumacher was faster, but when he had the chance to outperform schumacher ferrari doesn't let him,
anyway, he is just talking about this right now, because a "journalist" released a book this month with a very "fantasy" and false version of these conversations in the austrian gp from 2002, and rubens answered with this, and said he have the full transcription of the radio communications of this race, and he will show this in his future book....

here the interview, but it is in portuguese.
youtube.com/watch?v=W8aOeeRw658

Insulting people doesn't change the fact that it's true. Be dismissive if you want but you know Schumacher had a priviliged position over Rubins.

You might as well argue the sky is made of marshmellow

It remains an unintelligent comment.

I have never claimed that Michael did not have privileged treatment over Rubens....he did, and it was awarded to him on merit.

He was a 2x WDC when he joined an uncompetitive Scuderia, he contributed into making them a title-challenging & title-winning team, he brought them more success in his first season than Ferrari had achieved in 5 seasons, he was a crucial part of bringing in Byrne & Brawn.

Rubens, on the other hand, had not won a single GP when he put pen to Ferrari contract.

If you can't see why that makes Michael fundamentally deserving of preferred treatment, then you should have gone to SpecSavers.

If you think that Michael should have rolled out the red carpet for Rubens and given away all the advantages that he had worked for, then you need a brain scan.

[leopard]

I thought the same thing of Ruben is not driver easily engage in polemic statement. There might be something has put him in the state that force him to be in defensive mode. What else you know HenryM...

[Knock-on]

It remains an unintelligent comment.

I have never claimed that Michael did not have privileged treatment over Rubens....he did, and it was awarded to him on merit.

He was a 2x WDC when he joined an uncompetitive Scuderia, he contributed into making them a title-challenging & title-winning team, he brought them more success in his first season than Ferrari had achieved in 5 seasons, he was a crucial part of bringing in Byrne & Brawn.

Rubens, on the other hand, had not won a single GP when he put pen to Ferrari contract.

If you can't see why that makes Michael fundamentally deserving of preferred treatment, then you should have gone to SpecSavers.

If you think that Michael should have rolled out the red carpet for Rubens and given away all the advantages that he had worked for, then you need a brain scan.

What point are you trying to win here? Yet again, you post a number of facts that are not disputed to back up a completely unrelated point.

MS was the better driver. Not many people will dispute that.

MS was much more successful coming into Ferrari. Nobody can deny that.

These facts explain why he had the privileged position I claim in Ferrari and a #2 driver to act as rear gunner.

As for the intelligence you refer to, arguing against yourself by confirming my point seems rather cerebrally challenging so I suggest you take a trip to your ocular retailer and re-read my post.


But some people have claimed for years that MS won his titles on merit alone.

Surely this contradicts that with Rubins admitting he had a clear #2 role written into his contract.

MS was the better driver, MS was more successful but was assisted to his titles by a #2 who's contract stipulated he supported MS.

All I'm saying is that he contributed to MS's success. Is that so difficult to understand or are you just argueing for the sake of it?

[ioan]

MS was the better driver, MS was more successful but was assisted to his titles by a #2 who's contract stipulated he supported MS.

All I'm saying is that he contributed to MS's success. Is that so difficult to understand or are you just argueing for the sake of it?

MS would have won regardless of who was in the 2nd seat.
Rubens didn't contribute anything to MS' success he only contributed to Ferrari's success.

Maybe now you see why Tam thinks that your comment lacks in the intelligence department, and I have to agree with him.

[leopard]

agree, but not sure if it was LH in the second seat ;)

[markabilly]

agree, but not sure if it was LH in the second seat ;)


I could have seen LH being brought in to race along side MS at Ferrari, but when the stuff happened like it did in Hugarary with Freddie, the meeting where FA demanded no more LH etc after LH's big fit resulting in FA being knocked off the pole and moved down five starting positions, that meeting would not have been necessary.....

Okay I know some of you will disagree, so I will admit that maybe a meeting might have been necessary at Ferrari, that being a meeting to discuss what to do with LH's personal belongings left behind and who to drive the second car for the rest of the season.....

[Knock-on]

MS would have won regardless of who was in the 2nd seat.
Rubens didn't contribute anything to MS' success he only contributed to Ferrari's success.

Maybe now you see why Tam thinks that your comment lacks in the intelligence department, and I have to agree with him.

Well, you and Tamburello ganging up to make personal attacks on peoples intelligence. Why am I not surprised :laugh:

It is possible that MS would have won the titles he did without a #2 driver but if you cannot see that Rubens supported MS, even when the driver himself states it, then nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind but that's fine. It's just a friendly discussion. Opinions differ ioan. Respect others ;)

[Daika]

agree, but not sure if it was LH in the second seat ;)

I'm sure that if Hamilton was born hundred years ago world war I en II would never happend.

[markabilly]

Unlike others, I do not have anything negative to say about the book of Rubens. It should be a great read, I hope.

As to the irritation of many about the Rubens comments as to MS, well, to just get a test session (and I am not talking about a season drive, just a test) requires great skills, a hard nosed self confidence that they are the very best, and a very driven ego of ultra-extreme competitiveness.

To be able to accept the role of second place in a team and do it well, requires far more than it would require to let the natural instincts of such a person, control one's actions to just go for it.

As a whole, the differences between the greats and the back of the pack, is almost invisible, measured in milliseconds and millimeters but under the F1 competition microscope, those differences become months and kilometers.

And while no fan of MS, i do respect him for what he was able to achieve. In the 1960's to see Bruce, Gurney or Brabham, form their own teams and race was amazing, but to do it now, would be even more of an accomplishment.

Yet, that superior car is largely what MS managed to do by setting examples of hard work, very hard work, and assisting in getting the right people for the job. When people say he won because of a superior car, I say so??? He deserves credit for that by reason of hard work and a certain leadership style within the team that is now clearly gone from Ferrari.

Yes, Rubens as would any other driver, profited greatly from that. The price for admission to that ride, was to play second chair to MS---a tough price for anyone at that level to pay. I think he managed it quite well, until that moment at Monaco at the end of the race where MS passed him on the harbor chicane. The final straw perhaps.

nevertheless, rubens (and MS) raced at a time when the sport was very dangerous, coming very close to being the third driver to die at the race where senna was killed....so as to all the fuss, well big deal about nothing.

And I always thought that Rubens bore a great deal of resemblemce to Kelsy Grammer.....

[ioan]

I'm sure that if Hamilton was born hundred years ago world war I en II would never happend.

:rotflmao:

[ioan]

Well, you and Tamburello ganging up to make personal attacks on peoples intelligence. Why am I not surprised :laugh:

No one attacked your intelligence, only the intelligence of that comment was put in cause, read my post again.



It is possible that MS would have won the titles he did without a #2 driver but if you cannot see that Rubens supported MS, even when the driver himself states it, then nothing anyone can say will ever change your mind but that's fine. It's just a friendly discussion. Opinions differ ioan. Respect others ;)

So Rubens was beating the rest of the field only because he had to support MS? I bet if it wasn't for his 2nd driver role he would have been happy to be last! :rolleyes:
Your comments are losing more and more lucidity! :rotflmao:

[Firstgear]

MS would have won regardless of who was in the 2nd seat.

Apparantly MS disagrees with you, otherwise he wouldn't have insisted on preferencial treatment. If he thought he was capable of winning on his own, he would have insited on doing it without a "crutch" because it would've meant so much more. This really shows how insecure and lacking in self-confidence he was. When Kimi came along, this crutch was removed and rather than fight without it, MS chose to limp off into the sunset.

[Daika]

When Kimi came along, this crutch was removed and rather than fight without it, MS chose to limp off into the sunset.

Everybody wants to race with Schumacher. Problem is time. We all age so does Schumacher, how long does he have to race in order to proof he can race? there is always the next guy (hamilton) and the guy after the next guy, Schumacher would have to live forever in order to beat the future.

[Bezza]

That is the most ridiculously unintelligent comment.

How did Schumi get to the position whereby he could dictate the terms of his team-mates contract?

On merit. That's how.

There are many questions about Schumacher, I doubt they will ever be answered. Personally, despite his 91 wins and clear brilliant ability, he can never be regarded as the greatest - because look at his "illustrious" team-mates throughout his career.

Nelson Piquet (in the last 5 races of his career)
Martin Brundle
Riccardo Patrese (in the last season of his career)
Jos Verstappen
J.J. Lehto (both a complete joke really if you think a team would have two good drivers)
Johnny Herbert
Eddie Irvine
Rubens Barrichello
Felipe Massa

In my opinion, they are not of the calibre to suggest that Schumacher ever to fight anybody within his own team. Not like Senna and Prost at McLaren, or Piquet and Mansell at Williams. We will never know how quick, say, Hakkinen would have been opposite Schumacher in a Ferrari.

--------

About Barrichello,

Does Rubens really think that had he disobeyed team orders in Austria 2002, that he would have sacked immediately? It would have been the most farcical decision ever by Ferrari if they did that. They had such a huge car advantage that year, it baffles me why they still favoured Schumacher so much, and were almost scared to allow anybody else a chance.

It suggests that Schumacher held the power.

[Daika]

Poor Rubens, It is all about Schumacher our favrourite German.

MS was the better driver, MS was more successful but was assisted to his titles by a #2 who's contract stipulated he supported MS.

All I'm saying is that he contributed to MS's success. Is that so difficult to understand or are you just argueing for the sake of it?

Yes, because he was the better driver! Why should the better driver ever be hampered by having to fight a totally unnecessary battle with his team-mate?
Because it's a sport? Yeah right. Of course, your boy Hamilton has happily given away an advantage....like he did in Hungary 2007? This is not a sport...this is F1...and that means no favours, no giving away advantages, no equality.




All I'm saying is that he contributed to MS's success.

Yes he did, because that was his job. But since f1 is a "meritocracy" (copyright Ron Dennis) then he had no chance of matching Schumi.

However, to have ever expected Rubens to have had a shot at equal treatment is a joke and the belief strictly of the utterly senile.



Is that so difficult to understand or are you just argueing for the sake of it?

No son, I'm arguing because you don't seem to grasp very simple and basic notions.

I will continue to do so every time you make a comment that has no intelligence or merit, so you'd better get very used to it.

It is abundantly clear that you don't really like people pointing out the gaping holes in your knowledge and logic. If you don't, go back to the play-pen.

[ioan]

Apparantly MS disagrees with you, otherwise he wouldn't have insisted on preferencial treatment. If he thought he was capable of winning on his own, he would have insited on doing it without a "crutch" because it would've meant so much more. This really shows how insecure and lacking in self-confidence he was.

:laugh:
Tell you what, any of them out there would grab it with both hands if the team let's him make the rules, even Rubens. :p :


When Kimi came along, this crutch was removed and rather than fight without it, MS chose to limp off into the sunset.

And you can prove this by other means than by your own bias?
Are you talking about the same Kimi who only wakes up after half of the race is over? :rolleyes:

It suggests that Schumacher held the power.

And if you have the power, why give it away? Because it's the charitable and decent thing to do?

Schumacher did charity work....for UNICEF. F1 isn't Children In Need.

[Firstgear]

Are you talking about the same Kimi who only wakes up after half of the race is over? :rolleyes:

Yup, that's the one. Makes you wonder why he was so scared, doeesn't it. He should've believed in himself a bit more and he probably could have beat Kimi in the same car, and put all those doubts to rest.

Yup, that's the one. Makes you wonder why he was so scared, doeesn't it. He should've believed in himself a bit more and he probably could have beat Kimi in the same car, and put all those doubts to rest.

And, of course, the fact that he was 37 and knew he wasn't in his prime anymore had nothing to do with it?

[ioan]

Yup, that's the one. Makes you wonder why he was so scared, doeesn't it. He should've believed in himself a bit more and he probably could have beat Kimi in the same car, and put all those doubts to rest.

He wasn't scared, he was getting older and was tired.
I wonder what would you have come up with after the mean German fellow would have blown the slipping beauty out of the water if he didn't choose to get a real family life.
Judging by your posts you would have found some complicated fantasy explanation.

[Bezza]

And if you have the power, why give it away? Because it's the charitable and decent thing to do?

Schumacher did charity work....for UNICEF. F1 isn't Children In Need.

You've completely missed the point, as you have with your debates with Knock-On.

Schumacher held the power...in Ferrari - he is a driver, not Enzo Ferrari - so personally I find it wrong that he should have so much say over things, when he clearly did. The whole era 2000-2004 was the worst in F1 history - when it could have been so different. Had Ferrari had TWO drivers who were on equal terms and allowed to compete, we would have seen some great racing.

[ioan]

Had Ferrari had TWO drivers who were on equal terms and allowed to compete, we would have seen some great racing.

Yeah, especially when one of them was in average .5 seconds per lap faster than the other one. :rolleyes:

[BDunnell]

Yup, that's the one. Makes you wonder why he was so scared, doeesn't it. He should've believed in himself a bit more and he probably could have beat Kimi in the same car, and put all those doubts to rest.

I simply don't agree with that. It was his own decision, and I respect him for it, for knowing when to stop as a driver is a bloody hard decision to take. It ensured that he went out at the top, rather than being subject to that gradual deterioration of form and pace that is inevitable in motorsport. That wouldn't have been fitting. So, I don't think Schumacher can be criticised in any way for quitting when he did.

[Firstgear]

And, of course, the fact that he was 37 and knew he wasn't in his prime anymore had nothing to do with it?

Being beaten by Alonso in lesser machinery and losing his crutch were much bigger factors.

[BDunnell]

Apparantly MS disagrees with you, otherwise he wouldn't have insisted on preferencial treatment. If he thought he was capable of winning on his own, he would have insited on doing it without a "crutch" because it would've meant so much more. This really shows how insecure and lacking in self-confidence he was. When Kimi came along, this crutch was removed and rather than fight without it, MS chose to limp off into the sunset.

Is there anything to back any of this opinion up? Yes, he got preferential treatment. So what? To do anything else would have been unwise on the part of the teams concerned. Yes, he never had a strong team-mate, but so what? Having him and, say, Hakkinen in the same team would probably have seen them taking points off each other, so giving Schumacher a nice number two capable of winning races when he slipped up or had a problem — like Herbert, like Irvine — was surely an eminently sensible decision by those teams. If you're at the top, why attempt to jeopardise that position in any way?

And the statement that Schumacher didn't consider himself capable of 'winning on his own' — well, to be brutal, I think that's complete nonsense.

[BDunnell]

Being beaten by Alonso in lesser machinery and losing his crutch were much bigger factors.

According to whom?

[BDunnell]

How did Schumi get to the position whereby he could dictate the terms of his team-mates contract?

On merit. That's how.

I couldn't agree more. When I think of Schumacher's titles, not every thought is positive, but I don't immediately think that he wouldn't have won them without the meek assistance of Irvine, Barrichello et al.

[ioan]

Being beaten by Alonso in lesser machinery and losing his crutch were much bigger factors.

Your comments are getting worse by the minute. Must be that your hate towards the man is clouding your judgement more and more.

You've completely missed the point, as you have with your debates with Knock-On.

Schumacher held the power...in Ferrari - he is a driver, not Enzo Ferrari - so personally I find it wrong that he should have so much say over things, when he clearly did. The whole era 2000-2004 was the worst in F1 history - when it could have been so different. Had Ferrari had TWO drivers who were on equal terms and allowed to compete, we would have seen some great racing.

The whole 2000-2004 era was the worst in history for the fans of the British teams who had dominated for 21 years, maybe. Not for me it wasn't. It justified Ferrari's decision to give Michael outright Number One status.

Regarding Enzo Ferrari....Enzo Ferrari was more than happy to have a Number 1 / Number 2 arrangement, on more than one occasion, so I doubt he'd have been too upset at the sight of a Ferrari driver winning 5 titles in a row with that system.

So what if Michael was a driver....F1 is all about getting the best for yourself, be that as a driver or team boss.

Being beaten by Alonso in lesser machinery and losing his crutch were much bigger factors.

Yes, of course....and Bridgestone not being the equal of Alonso's tailor-made Michelin's for 1/4 of the season, not to mention a valve dropping onto a cylinder head in the land of the Rising Sun had nothing to do with being beaten that year?

Also, how come MS announced his retirement 3 races before the title was won by Fernando, yet you reckon losing was the reason why he quit?

Couldn't have anything to do with you talking bollocks now, could it?

[BDunnell]

The whole 2000-2004 era was the worst in history for the fans of the British teams who had dominated for 21 years, maybe. Not for me it wasn't.

And we shouldn't forget that there have always been seasons in which there have been deeply tedious races. As I have said on here many times, I am not a 'supporter' of any team or driver over another — I can recall some incredibly tedious races between 2000-04, yet I also recall the German GP in 2000 and the British GP of 2003 which were two of the most exciting races I have ever seen.

[markabilly]

rubens and ms both got what they deserved...so what is all the fussing about....geeass it is beyond me what all the fussing is about.

if ms left before he was absolutely ready, it was because luca was jealous and wanted to have ferrari get all the glory....the other reason was simple: rumor was that kimi had an out in the contract and Kimi was not going to ferrari that year if MS was still there BUT luca thought the future was kimi (and it often is, about two laps from the end when Kimi wakes up.. :idea: ...and in 2007, it was LH and FA fighting themselves out of a wdc which is the only reason that Kimi won)

[ArrowsFA1]

F1 is all about getting the best for yourself, be that as a driver or team boss.
And from that perspective you cannot argue with Ferrari's policy of building a team around one driver, particularly when he signed in 1995. Ferrari were rebuilding and MS was at the centre of that. It made sense, the likes of Irvine and Barrichello knew the score, and you can't argue with the results.

But, Austria brought all of that into focus in a negative way. I think many felt that to gift MS a win, when he already had every 'advantage' (both within the team and in terms of talent) was so unnecessary. He did not need to be given a win like that. By his reaction I think he realised that as well.

[Bagwan]

Rubens is angry at Michael , for lying about the fact he didn't know about the order until it came .
And he's angry at Todt , who told him it would not come if they were fighting for first and second .

I argued that Ferrari was right to do it at the time , but I might have had a different view , had I known they broke a promise and lied to him .

Michael was not faster that day , a day early in the championship , and Rubens was threatened .
I now understand more , the disgruntled appearance on the podium . He though Michael was his friend .

[PolePosition_1]

Why he stay in ferrari then? because he was overrated, payed good money,
the car they provide him was the only one in his career that he was able to win races.

If he wasn't in ferrari then his career was going to finish until 2003-2004.
I am angry with those comments after so many years he spent in ferrari.
He should have left the team earlier if he got the balls but he didn't. Cry poor rubens cry...


Apparently he was told that he would never have to give up position to Schumacher if it was for victory. But they went back on their word in Austria.

[PolePosition_1]

This gentleman should have talk and complain whilst He was there (Driving a great car and get lot of $$$ as well) not now :down: I've lost all respect for him after this...

Maybe thats because he's a professional. He hardly going to slag off his team whilst still working there.

All due respect, but some posts on this threat are so tinted by Ferrari red its laughable.

[PolePosition_1]

No excuse knockie, Rubens knew he was a 2nd driver, he accepted that and got good money for it, so why attack Ferrari now about something he did agree when signing his contract ? :crazy:

Rubens was told by Ferrari that he would never have to give up a position to Schumacher if it was for race victory.

[PolePosition_1]

I find it sort of ironic that there are constant complaints about drivers being bland and towing the party line that when one of them does not, albeit a few years later, many have a hissy fit.
Oh well.


Snap.

[BDunnell]

And from that perspective you cannot argue with Ferrari's policy of building a team around one driver, particularly when he signed in 1995. Ferrari were rebuilding and MS was at the centre of that. It made sense, the likes of Irvine and Barrichello knew the score, and you can't argue with the results.

But, Austria brought all of that into focus in a negative way. I think many felt that to gift MS a win, when he already had every 'advantage' (both within the team and in terms of talent) was so unnecessary. He did not need to be given a win like that. By his reaction I think he realised that as well.

I think that's a very fair comment on what happened.

Let's not forget, though, that this was by no means the first time such a thing had happened in motorsport, it was by no means the worst such incident (a couple in the WRC spring to mind) and I reckon had it been anybody else but Schumacher there wouldn't have been such vehement criticism.

Rubens was told by Ferrari that he would never have to give up a position to Schumacher if it was for race victory.

According to who?

Rubens?

Who says he is the gospel truth?

Eddie Irvine gave up a potential race victory in 1997 for Schumi, and at that point he hadn't won a GP. I'd be surprised if Barrichello's contract was much different, if at all.

[ioan]

I think that's a very fair comment on what happened.

Let's not forget, though, that this was by no means the first time such a thing had happened in motorsport, it was by no means the worst such incident (a couple in the WRC spring to mind) and I reckon had it been anybody else but Schumacher there wouldn't have been such vehement criticism.

Fair comment! :up: