Newsgroup: it.sport.formula1
Titolo: sondaggi

ho letto un articolo non molto tempo fa, dove c'era scritto che la
maggioranza della gente comune, che guarda le corse alla tv,
considera MS il pilota più grande di sempre.. mentre lo stesso
sondaggio tra piloti, ex piloti, tecnici, gente che lavora nelle
corse o che ci ha lavorato, ha dato come risultato un certo
Ayrton Senna.. poi altri piloti come Fangio, Prost e altri..
molto staccato c'era MS.. non è interessante questa cosa?
sinceramente non ho mai sentito un pilota, o ex, dire che MS è
il più forte di tutti, ma tante volte l' ho sentito dire per Senna...
non traggo nessuna conclusione da quanto scritto, ma non
nascondo che la cosa mi fa piacere!!
saluti al ng!

 saluti al ng!
Beh, qualcuno lo dice. Bisogna verificare però quanto siano attendibili
queste affermazioni... Sai il business... Leccare il culo a Schumacher e
alla Ferrari può essere utile...
Saluti.

 anche lo schiavetto attuale Barrichello...
Irvine, ti ricordo, ha anche detto che: "per i soldi alle volte si fanno
cose che puzzano.." secondo te a cosa si riferiva? Io una vaga idea
ce l'ho..
ciao!

 alla Ferrari può essere utile...
sai chi mi hai fatto venire in mente? quello stronzo di Ronaldo che a
Montecarlo disse: "Schumi è troppo simpatico!!"..
ehh, come un crampo allo stomaco, ho pensato io...
chiedo scusa agli interisti.. se ce ne sono.. e magari penseranno che
sono stato anche troppo tenero.. ma non divaghiamo!

 ciao!
Ben detto!
Saluti.

 molto staccato c'era MS.. non è interessante questa cosa?
No, non lo ritengo personalmente interessante, nel senso che è assurdo
fare una classifica di sempre, sia che si tratti di chiederlo ai
telespettatori sia che si tratti di chiederlo agli addetti ai lavori, che
per primi dovrebbero sapere quante sono le variabili che possono
condizionare tale giudizio
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
 (o_        Vinci                     registered Linux User #276630
 //\         " Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent "
 V_/_                     Salvor Hardin, Foundation


Se ti capita di passare in libreria, sfoglia il libro di Zanardi e leggi il
capitolo riguardante i suoi anni in go-Kart, quando correva con MS, e
descrive il mondiale vinto da MS e una gara sempre in germania dove correva
sempre MS. e vi toglierete qualche curiosità
Clone

 Clone
accidenti, lo scrivi così, senza aggiungere altro... dovrò passare il
libreria
allora!

Gianluca smetti di fare il minorato mentale, anche se lo sei di natura
forse.
Comunque quel sondaggio non vale granchè perchè mai i piloti ammettono di
avere il più forte nel loro tempo. ricordo montermini che diceva che a
parità di macchina si sente più forte di Schumacher. E dallo stesso libro
di Zanardi si crea un ritratto del bolognese di pilota imbattibile:
praticamente dava sempre un secondo al giro a tutti.
Fra 10 anni molti diranno che Schu è stato il migliore di sempre.
Poi su Senna non badiamo troppo a certi commenti. Ormai è un santino
beatificato da tanta gente che da vivo lo odiava, specie per quelle 29
vittorie in testa dal primo all'ultimo giro, davvero noiose..., e per il
mondiale vinto nel modo piu soprco possibile: la porcata di suzuka resterà
per sempre una macchia nella sua carriera, soprattutto perxhè PREMEDITATA!
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 forse.
Piantala di offendere, pirletta.

 per sempre una macchia nella sua carriera, soprattutto perxhè PREMEDITATA!
perchè in questo ng tutti ricordano la porcata che fece Senna, e non quella
che
fece Prost ai suoi danni? perchè nessuno ammette, che di fatto, fu un
regolamento di conti fra i due? perchè nessuno dice che i due si odiavano?
quando si parla di MS scorretto, molti tirano in ballo quello che fece
Senna, come dire, l'ha fatto lui quindi può farlo anche il tedesco!
Bel ragionamento non c'è che dire.. io rimango dell'idea che Senna e
Prost si sono fatti delle porcate l'un l'altro, (e fu il francese a
cominciare)... e questo non li giustifica, ed è vero, è una macchia
nella carriera di Senna.. ma MS in quanto a  schifosaggine,
antisportività, è davvero di un altro pianeta... qui si che è il n°1

 antisportività, è davvero di un altro pianeta... qui si che è il n°1
Le porcate le hanno fatte anche loro, tutte gravi. Si dice che quella di
Senna è un regolamento di conti. Non so se è morale lo speronamento a
240km/h di un'altra monoposto di F1. Quello è quasi un tentativo di
omicidio e nulla può giustificare un tale atto.
Schumacher? Certo che ha fatto una porcata (una goffa manovra dico io)
ma almeno l'ha pagata, Prost e Senna ci hanno vinto dei mondiali
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

 ma almeno l'ha pagata, Prost e Senna ci hanno vinto dei mondiali
poi mi spiegherai la differenza tra goffa manovra e manovra palesemente
antisportiva.. e non vedo differenze tra fare una porcata che ti fa vincere
ed una che ti fa perdere.. e poi, già una porcata MS l'aveva fatta con
Damon Hill, e aveva fruttato un titolo..

 Damon Hill, e aveva fruttato un titolo..
quello fu un attacco suicida da parte di Hill in un punto impossibile.
MSC stava solamente seguendo la normale traiettoria di gara quando Hill
gli è saltato addosso.
"In summary there is nothing solid to suggest that Michael Schumacher
deliberately set out to take Damon Hill out of the Australian Grand Prix
of 1994. He simply closed the door on his rival, with the intention
preventing any possible overtaking move, but not with the intention of
deliberate collision."
insomma, un incidente di gara


 gli è saltato addosso.
MS ha visto DH sferrare l'attacco, negli specchietti, e la chiuso,
davvero non so come fai a dire che è un incidente di gara...
ma la tua opinione è sacra, come la mia! :-)
ciao!

> MS ha visto DH sferrare l'attacco, negli specchietti, e la chiuso,
e l'ha chiuso, volevo scrivere!! che figura....

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:702ab48cdf4a5d1a1c...@mygate.mailgate.org...

Sei falso, come il testo in inglese semplicemente ridicolo.

 ma la tua opinione è sacra, come la mia! :-)
Ha seguito la normale traiettoria di gara, non gli ha "tagliato la
strada".
per chi ha voglia di leggersi questo pappardellone:
Adelaide 1994 Judgement
Introduction
The collision between Michael Schumacher and Damon Hill at Adelaide is
remembered today as the event that decided the 1994 World Championship.
At the press conference after the race, Michael was right to put this
collision in it's proper context. By recalling the nightmare of Imola,
he made us realise that the collision at Adelaide was not the most
significant accident of 1994:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of us know what feelings we have had to make about this, in
particular for Ayrton, but as well for Roland, and as well for Karl
(what happened in Monte Carlo). For me it always clear that I was not
going to win the Championship, and it was Ayrton who was going to win
the Championship, but he hasn't been there for the last races, and I'd
like to take this Championship and give it to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The races following Imola in the 1994 Championship were still fought out
under the shadow of Senna; they were diminished by his absence. It was
not until 1995 and 1996 that Damon and Michael were truly free to create
their own era in modern Grand Prix history. To win the 1994 Championship
without Senna was seen by Schumacher as a hollow victory, and this
victory was diminished even further in the eyes of the public by the
fact that the Championship was decided by a collision in the final race.
It is the duty of this court to decide whether either Michael Schumacher
or Damon Hill is to blame for this collision or that it should be put
down as what is generally described as a racing incident, i.e. neither
of the drivers can be solely blamed for the collision.
Verdict
At Adelaide 1994 Michael Schumacher made a reckless defensive manouevre,
shutting the door without regard for the fact that Damon Hill couldn't
slow enough to avoid a collision. This was a racing incident, with
neither driver fully to blame. There was no credible evidence presented
to support the claim that Schumacher deliberately collided with Hill,
and there was no evidence whatsoever that Hill deliberately collided
with Schumacher.
Due to the lack of evidence concerning the guilt of Hill, argument in
the court was polarised into prosecution against Michael Schumacher, to
support a guilty verdict against him, and defence of Michael Schumacher,
to support the view that this was a racing incident. Henceforth in this
judgement we refer to the prosecution and defence according to these
definitions.
The role of Supporting Circumstantial Evidence in this Case
Supporting circumstantial evidence has been presented to the court to
attest to each driver's character, by reference to similar incidents in
each driver's career. Jerez 1997 is the most striking of these. Michael
Schumacher has admitted he deliberately collided with Jacques Villeneuve
at Jerez 1997 to prevent him from passing in that race. The prosecution
sees this as evidence that Michael's character is such to make it likely
that the collision in Adelaide 1994 was just another deliberate act by
him. However it must be considered that the reverse may be true, in that
the events of Adelaide may have made Schumacher feel more confident and
bold about potentially over-aggressive defence of a corner. It is quite
possible that Adelaide 1994 was not deliberate, but its outcome in
favour of Michael encouraged the deliberate act later in Jerez 1997. On
the opposite side of this coin we have Damon Hill's later record of
failed attempts to pass Michael Schumacher, especially in races the
following year. These could realistically be characterised as desperate
and ill-judged, in the same way that the defence claims the Adelaide
passing attempt to be. While this could be used to conclude that Damon
was given to allowing his enthusiasm and desire to overcome his ability,
we have sufficient video evidence to analyse the adelaide incident on
its merits, which do not demonstrate the sort of closing speed and
impact violence of these later incidents. This supporting circumstantial
evidence suggests that characteristically Michael had a tendency for
aggressive defensive manouevres, and characteristically Damon had a
tendency for over-ambitious passing manoeuvres, which is a completely
incompatible set of character traits in close racing situations.
.
Analysis of Prosecution Submissions
Schumacher had damaged car, and therefore had no right to further
participation in the motor race.
There was damage to the Benetton, but no visible damage (the
rear-wheel-at-an-angle theory was not adequately demonstrated). We
cannot say how serious the damage was. The damage might have been
slight, and in that case he was still a valid participant in the Grand
Prix. From the video evidence it is plain to see Schumacher sawing at
the wheel. Once you have gone off the track and hit your front wheel on
a wall, a driver will check the steering is OK by sawing the wheel from
right to left. Schumacher did this, but subsequently repeated these
motions even while turning into the corner where the collision occurred.
It is likely that the car was damaged and he was learning how to control
it, while still racing for the lead of the motor race.
Upon leaving the track, Schumacher had a major accident with the
concrete wall
The video shows a glance of the wall with the right front wheel. The
reason for his off-track excursions was that Schumacher lost the back of
the car on a bump in the middle of a left-hand-corner, had to steer to
the right to correct the oversteer slide of the rear wheels, and hence
couldn't take the left-hand turn on the tarmac, and he went off onto the
grass, towards one of the concrete walls that surround the entire
Adelaide street course. Schumacher took most of the corner on the grass,
and finally hit his front-right wheel on the wall with the car almost
parallel to it, so the force of the hit went almost directly along the
axis of the axle, a much better scenario for the Benetton than if the
angle of collision had been greater.
Michael is allegedly looking in right mirror before the collision with
Hill occurred
Drivers always look inwards towards the apex of a corner. Michael could
not have seen his outside mirror, but clearly he could have seen his
inside mirror. While focussing on the apex, he still would have been
aware of what was happening in the mirror. F1 drivers are capable of
looking backwards and forwards at the same time, conciously focussing on
forward events, but still aware of the position of cars behind.
Contention that only full speed cars should be on racing line
Only lapped or terminally-damaged cars can realistically be expected to
assist a pass in this way..
Michael's alleged deliberate attempt to take Damon out on the straight
Upon rejoining the track, Michael returned to the racing line, and then
defended that line, despite the fact his car was not at racing speed.
Damon had to brake to avoid a collision, then was forced to change his
line to the inside. After coasting over the grass, Michael bounced over
the kerb back onto the track and only then had the opportunity to turn
the car to the right to get the car pointing in the right direction. He
had a choice: either to immediately turn very hard to get the car
pointing in the right direction - which would have diminished his
forward momentum and left the racing line open to Damon Hill - or to
simply continue in his direction of travel until he was in a position to
take the racing line, and then make his right-hand turn. He took the
latter option, but this was not an attempt to collide with Hill.
Damon was far enough alongside Schumacher to claim corner, allegedly
with the tip of his car level with front wheels of Schumacher
The point when Damon was this far alongside Schumacher was very late in
the incident. Damon was almost a car length behind at the point when
Schumacher started to turn in. However the reduced speeds meant that
Damon had more time than normal to make his passing move.
Schumacher must have seen Damon as he was alongside 
This is a strong supposition. It's likely that Schumacher saw Hill but
it's unlikely that Schumacher could judge, or even cared to judge, the
closing speed of Damon.
Schumacher's turn-in was not normal but a sudden swerve to hit Hill
MS turned in slightly earlier than usual, but the amount of early
turn-in was not a significant factor in the collision. Adelaide is a
street circuit, characterised by 90 degree corners. These are not smooth
curves, but harsh turns, where the car changes direction very hard
indeed. The ideal racing line tries to make the 90 degree corner into
the largest possible curve, with a wide entry and exit, but the fact
remains it is 90-degrees, and once you turn in, you throw the car
through 90 degrees in a very short distance.
If a driver wants to overtake on the inside of one of these turns, he is
delaying his apex a very large amount. In this case, if Damon had
progressed along the line he was taking, he still had a significant
amount of turning to do after the classical apex to the corner, and
therefore Michael would have had to slow very significantly and steer
very wide to avoid Damon. It's fairly rare to see two cars go
side-by-side through a 90 degree corner.
MS blocked twice in the runup to the corner
this is a flawed argument because turning into the corner is not
blocking. The "no two moves" rule does not include turning into the
corner defensively.
Damon attempted to avoid the accident, whereas Michael did not
Damon attempted to avoid the accident only once it was too late. Michael
Schumacher turned into the corner in a fashion which did not take into
account there was car behind him.
Analysis of Defence Submissions
Damon's overtaking move was ill-judged and impetuous
Given what Hill knew, it was a bold move, but no more than that.
However, it did require cooperation from Schumacher to succeed.
MS may not have known how badly his car was damaged and thus was
entitled to defend his position.
It is unreasonable to expect Schumacher to let Damon through while he
checked the behaviour of his car. If Damon had been closely following
Schumacher, he would have passed immediately when Michael left the
track, and in that case MS wouldn't even have had the chance to defend
his position.
Michael focused on his badly damaged car and getting things back
together, not on Hill
As a top racing driver Michael should be capable of doing all these
things simultaneously, and his actions when rejoining the track showed
that his first priority was to keep the lead of the motor race. Once he
joined that battle with Hill by taking the racing line, he was in a
battle for position and should have been aware of the position of the
following car.
Hill's overlap was not until it was far too late, i.e. he lunged up the
inside, not like having an overlap in the braking zone
There wasn't a clear pass, where Schumacher would have been prevented
from turning in by the fact that Hill's car was level with the Benetton,
but it was a valid attempt to pass because this situation was not a
normal braking zone due the reduced speeds of the cars.
Michael was not looking in his mirror ... turning his head to the right
implies nothing as the mirrors can be seen with head straight.
We cannot know this for sure, but a likely supposition was that Michael
was aware of what was in his mirror, but he was not focussing on it.
The moment Michael becomes aware of Hill is clear from his sudden head
movement just before impact
While at that moment it is clear he does see him, this does not prove he
wasn't aware previous to that.
Judge's Comments 
A central plank of the prosecution case is that Damon Hill was
substantially faster arriving at the corner than Michael, so Michael
shouldn't have turned in across him. Yet there is actually no reason to
think their speed into the corner was significantly different. Damon
arrived faster at the apex of the corner, but he came from a long way
back. By the turn-in point on the racing line, the speed they were
travelling at was a braking-point decision made by the drivers not an
issue of relative car speed. It is true that both the cars arrived at
the corner at a slower speed than normal. The prosecution argues that
Damon was blocked by Michael in the run up to the corner, hence at this
point his speed was restricted to the slower speed of the Benetton.
There is nothing in the evidence to suggest the braking or accelerative
performance of the Benetton was in any way hampered. Therefore they must
both have arrived in the corner at approximately the same speed.
The fact that Michael Schumacher's car was damaged must in the analysis
of their relative behaviour in the corner be discarded as irrelevant.
Damon did not know that Michael had hit the wall, and Michael's task
would be to do the best with the car as it stood while he assessed the
damage. There is no evidence presented which compellingly shows that
prior to their collision the Benetton was unfit to drive at racing
speed. The most plausible evidence presented was the supposition that
the impact with the wall might have damaged the front right suspension
in a way that made the car pull to the right, and hence we saw Michael
continually making steering corrections back to the left.
Much has been made by the prosecution of the idea that Damon attempted
to avoid the accident, but Michael did not. If we look at the incident
from the time when we know Michael was aware of Damon's position and
passing attempt then we have to examine what could have been done at
this point to avoid the accident. Damon could have braked. He did this,
but given he was taking the tightest possible line at the apex already,
and that he was fractions of a second away from impacting the car ahead,
braking was probably futile. Michael could not have braked as this would
have precipitated an even more certain accident. This is because Hill
was not ahead: it was not as if Michael could brake and let Damon run
wide, where Michael could have re-taken him on exit by taking a tighter
line. Michael could have turned left, but this would have conceded the
corner to Hill. To give "racing room", Michael would have had to let
Damon control when the apex of the corner was to be taken, which due to
his parallel run along the inside, would have been well past the
geometric apex of the corner. To avoid an accident Michael would have
had to turn left, brake and wait for Damon to take the corner, with
Michael taking the corner on a much wider line. This is an unreasonable
expectation for a competitive racing driver. From the point Hill chose
to brake less or later and go up the inside the accident was effectively
inevitable.
The is a precedent in the Prost-Senna 1989 case to consider where the
steering actions of Prost after he knew that collision was inevitable
were interpreted by the court as damning evidence against Prost. At
Adelaide 1994, Michael was steering towards the apex in a series of
swerves of diminishing radius, and just before impact he was in the
process of straightening the steering wheel away from the apex. Once hit
by Damon, he was pushed forward into an understeering slide, so his
natural reaction was to regain control by countering the force which was
unnaturally pushing his car away from the apex by turning the wheel hard
into the apex of the corner, and as he is launched into the air, you can
see his left hand on top of the steering wheel, almost turned as far as
the 1pm position. This case differs from Prost-Senna 1989, in that once
hit by Damon, Schumacher had no option but to turn even further into the
apex in an attempt to regain control of the car and drive through the
corner. Schumacher would have seen the wheel of the Williams locked in a
braking slide, and hence it was unlikely that Damon would then
accelerate so they both could continue side-by-side with interlocked
wheels. Schumacher had to try to get his rear wheel around the front
wheel of the Williams, and an oversteer attempt was his only option.
Many submissions dealt with the issue of how much and when Michael saw
Damon in his mirrors. However almost all of this is just speculation on
both sides of the argument and must be put aside as such. Nothing in the
videos shown proves conclusively that Michael did or did not see Damon
at any given moment prior to his sudden head movement a fraction of a
second before impact. This sudden head movement of Schumacher was his
surprised response to the fact that he and Damon were about to collide.
It's likely Schumacher was aware of Damon's presence on the inside line,
but it's not likely that he knew it was inevitable that they would
collide.
In the end it clearly cannot be proven that Michael Schumacher knew
Damon Hill was attempting an overtaking move in time for him to defend
it in a fashion that would not cause an accident. Damon was not granted
passing room, as Michael was in a car that may or may not have been
sufficiently damaged to complete the race in the lead, so there was no
obligation for Michael to simply let Damon by, but there was an
obligation to handle the situation in a fashion other than just acting
as if Hill was not there. It is not for this court to decide what
Michael should have done, there being a number of possible reactions
available to a late inside-passing attempt like this, but to decide if
what he did do was appropriate. Schumacher was aware of Damon, and he
was closing the door on any possible overtaking attempt. Whether he was
making the assumption that Damon could slow down enough, or whether he
was even sure Damon was going to go for it, let alone go so deep that he
couldn't stop, is not the issue.
The initial impact between the cars was relatively slight. The incident
only became serious - the video very clearly shows when the damage to
Hill's car occurred - because of the wheel-to-wheel touching that threw
the Benetton onto its side. It was stated in evidence that if Damon had
accelerated at the point of impact, and hence pushed Michael out of the
way, he might have avoided the destructive wheel-to-wheel impact between
two cars travelling at such a large speed difference and hence won the
championship. This idea increases the weight behind the conclusion that
the fact the accident led to Hill's withdrawal was in fact just a freak
effect of the way it happened.
In summary there is nothing solid to suggest that Michael Schumacher
deliberately set out to take Damon Hill out of the Australian Grand Prix
of 1994. He simply closed the door on his rival, with the intention
preventing any possible overtaking move, but not with the intention of
deliberate collision. It is more than reasonable to expect a driver in
Formula One, especially a championship contender, to be aware of the
events on track behind him. This is part of a driver's responsibility to
himself and his fellow competitors. Being oblivious to another car is no
excuse for ignoring it. The conventional way to defend a 90-degree
corner is to take the racing line and close the door on a competitor
trying to overtake on the inside. The two trajectories of the racing
line and the inside line intersect at such a sharp angle as to make it
nearly impossible for Michael to give Damon racing room to turn in
alongside him: either Damon had to brake in time, or they would collide.
For Michael to give Damon racing room would have meant a very wide line
for Michael on the exit, to give Damon the space necessary to turn into
the corner, something he had hardly started to do by the time he had
arrived at the apex. Due to his off-course excursion at the previous
corner and the resultant reduced speeds, the situation was unusual, and
Michael should have known an attempt was likely if not certain, and
should have been more aware of the position of his rival's car.
Michael's mistake was just assuming that ignoring the problems of his
off-course excursion and therefore the chasing car being on his rear
wing and just taking his line regardless would make it go away. Michael
knew the situation was very unusual: you can't really expect to take the
racing line unchallenged if you are travelling at less than racing
speed.
Michael Schumacher did turn into the corner in a fashion which did not
take into account the car behind him, which he should have been aware
was likely to attempt an overtake there. Possibly through being more
interested in his cars state than his rival's position, possibly through
simply not thinking anyone would overtake there, or possibly through
just thinking if he strong-armed it, Hill wouldn't go for the pass.
Michael did not take sufficient care of his position on track relative
to another car. We must conclude that Michael Schumacher caused the
incident through reckless negligence, but that there is no evidence
whatsoever apart from the circumstantial evidence of motive and
opportunity that he intended for this to happen.


 cominciare)...
Quelle decisive per il mondiale sì. Comunque all'epoca di Suzuka 89 i
rapporti tra i due erano già deteriorati (per usare un eufemismo) da
parecchio....


> Sei falso
messo con le spalle al muro comincia ad insultare, tipico.


 Sei falso, come il testo in inglese semplicemente ridicolo.
Mi pare che anche i commissari l'abbiano definito comunque un incidente di
gara
-- 


 completamente d'accordo!


Di chi era la frase in inglese? Di pincopalla?

 il più forte di tutti, ma tante volte l' ho sentito dire per Senna...
Io non credo che sia cosi' importante stabilire chi è il piu' grande. E' una
fortuna che in F1 ci siano stati PILOTI (lasciamo perdere il resto ) come
Senna e come Schumacher e come Mansell e Prost e Lauda ecc. Hanno lasciato
il loro segno chi nei ricordi degli appassionati , chi nelle statistiche ,
chi ha fatto entrambe le cose .
Sara' divertente tra 15 anni (anche se io qui non ci saro') ascoltare
discorsi simili a quelli che si fanno adesso ma magari a riguardo di un
pilota , arrivato a 18 anni in F1 e piazzato subito su una monoposto ad
inizio ciclo vincente e che quindi si è
accapparato 8 titoli in 15 anni di competizione e ancora non si ritira .
Potrebbe succedere anche questo .

 Potrebbe succedere anche questo .
in effetti potrebbe succedere qualsiasi cosa.. ma sai.. il discorso su
chi è stato il pilota più forte.. forse è vero, forse non è così importante,
ma non ti nascondo che mi affascina sempre.. pensare alla storia della
f.1, pensare a piloti che hanno lasciato il segno negli anni, pensare a
gente che sarebbe andata forte con qualsiasi macchina, elettronica o
meno.. non mi piace il discorso che ogni pilota ha dato il meglio
nel suo momento, e non avrebbe potuto fare altrettanto in un altro
periodo, con altre macchine, altre tecnologia.. io credo che un
pilota, quando ha il talento, è capace di andare forte sempre, con
o senza elettronica, sospensioni attive, minigonne, gomme da asciutto
o da bagnato.. in fondo è anche per questo che non ho mai tifato
Ferrari, mi sembra stupido tifare per un auto.. per me gli eroi sono i
piloti, gente che rischia la vita, capace di imprese in nome della
passione per la velocità..

 ma non ti nascondo che mi affascina sempre.. pensare alla storia della
Che sia affascinante è un conto, che sia possibile farlo con un minimo di
"serietà" tutt'altro, nel senso che può essere molto interessante, ma
impossibile da "risolvere". A me proprio per il fatto che nella storia
della F.1 ci sono tanti campioni importanti piace di più che ognuno sia
riuscito a ritagliarsi uno spazio per essere ricordato.


 strada".
non ti credo perchè dalle immagini si vede che MS, appena
rientrato in pista, guarda negli specchietti, quindi vede DH
e poi chiude la traettoria; la questione è che lui sapeva che
c'era la Williams li al suo fianco.. però ammetto che non
ho ancora letto il testo allegato.. non potevi trovarne uno più
corto????

 avuto la possibilità lo avrebbe sbattuto fuori..
Anche perché a volerla dire tutta, Villeneuve ci aveva provato alla gara
precedente, uscendo dai box, per di più mentre correva sub-judice....


 precedente, uscendo dai box, per di piů mentre correva sub-judice....
vuoi dire che i simili si riconoscono? scrivendo in questo ng mi rendo
sempre piů conto di quanto vorrei avere tutte le gare di almeno gli
ultimi 20 anni.. per poter ri-vedere sorpassi, contro sorpassi,
incidenti, tuute le cose che emergono da questo ng e che onestamente
non ricordo..

 vuoi dire che i simili si riconoscono? scrivendo in questo ng mi rendo
Non so se avesse paura di qualche tipo di "vendetta". Comunque la vicenda
č stata piů o meno cosě : uscendo da un pitstop, Villeneuve si č
trovato davanti a Schumacher che arrivava sul rettifilo principale in
pieno. Non ha trovato niente di meglio da fare che attraversare la pista
da un lato all'altro mentre era in accelerazione e quindi molto piů
lento, con Schumacher che ha dovuto schivarlo mentre arrivava alla
frenata della prima curva. Ora, questo non cancella ovviamente la
scorrettezza di Jerez, ma a chi dice che Schumacher č un mezzo assassino
per quella manovra, andrebbe ricordato anche cosa fanno gli altri. Anche
perché lo stesso Schumacher IMHO ha fatto manovre piů pericolose di
quella....


 regolamento di conti fra i due? perchč nessuno dice che i due si odiavano?
č vero si odiavano, rimane un mezzo mistero il fatto che, il giorno prima di
morire, Senna fece un elogio a Prost (che si era ritirato dalle corse)
chiamandolo "amico". Ricordo che Prost fece una faccia, non sapeva che dire
e la morte poche ore piů tardi lo sconvolse
--
BluEdoG
-------------------------------------------
blu...@despammed.com

 quella....
ma, guarda, credo di ricordare il fatto. ma essendo passato del tempo
dovrei rivedere le immagini per dare un giudizio sereno ed obiettivo.
Però da come presenti il fatto, sembra più un dispetto di JV a MS
che un tentativo di scorrettezza vero e proprio (i piloti di dispetti se
ne fanno eccome!) sennò mi stai dicendo che JV si è spostato x
farlo andare fuori strada, lui che era in fondo al rettilineo
quindi molto veloce.. manovra pericolossima, ma non lo credo..
tra parentesi MS stesso fece la stessa cosa in Canada sbattendo
fuori Frentzen.. ma per incidenti del genere, non penso alla
volontarietà, perchè un conto è chiudere uno agli 80 all'ora, un
conto è sbattere fuori uno, che ne so, ai 200..
che ne dici?

 farlo andare fuori strada,
JVi disse di averlo fatto per cercare di restare a tutti i costi davanti
a MSc
"Dovevo cercare di tenerlo dietro in tutti i modi. Č stata una manovra
molto delicata, ci siamo sfiorati, ma non volevo bloccarlo." (da
Autosprint)


 passione per la velocità..
In questo siamo simili, neppure io non riesco a tifare per le scuderie, ma
solo per i piloti .

 Autosprint)
mmmm bè conferma quello che pensavo io.. non in termini di un
dispetto.... una manovra azzardata per tenerlo dietro e non per
sbatterlo fuori.. no?

 sbatterlo fuori.. no?
Più che azzardata parlerei di scorretta, sul piano della sportività, e
molto pericolosa.


 molto pericolosa.
mi sembra un discorso interessante.. non ricordo se nel 97 c'era
la normativa sulle linee da non oltrepassare all'uscita dai box,
come c'è adesso.. qui però il discorso non è semplice.. JV
esce dai box e fa di tutto per non farsi superare, con una manovra
pericolosa.. ma il suo fine è non farsi superare.. mi piacerebbe
sapere che nel regolamento sono comprese situazioni come
queste..

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:SlMZa.38898$an6.1...@news1.tin.it...

No , la regola sulla riga bianca è piu' recente , forse dopo Canada 98 .
Una  manovra analoga  l'ha fatta HHF nello stesso GP nei confronti di Irvine
, che si lamento' , al contrario MS non si lamento'  .
Molte cose del genere si erano viste nel 95 tra MS e DH , ecco perchè
durante le interviste tutti dicevano di sperare in un svolgimento corretto
.
Ma quel GP è stato tutto una "scorrettezza" dal venerdi' alla domenica , la
cosa strana è che tutto è stato anche rivelato alla stampa.
Villeneuve correva sub judice per le bandiere gialle ignorate ripetutamente
durante le prove , Irvine e Schumacher hanno dichiarato di essersi accordati
perfino sul punto in cui scambiarsi la posizione , Irvine dichiaro' di dover
far passare MS e di dover bloccare Villeneuve , Villeneuve dichiaro' di aver
lasciato andar via Irvine, preoccupandosi solo di tappare MS in modo che
qualcuno lo superasse, ma nessuno lo passo' , Schumacher rimase dietro ad
Herbert per un paio di giri e allora un uomo Ferrari si incammino' verso il
muretto della Sauber ,  a fine gara Schumacher ebbe dei problemi anche con
la Arrows di Damon Hill, ... insomma sembrava il festival delle ripicche.