Brawn will wait and see on Schumacher contract extension

F1 Fanatic round-up

Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Barcelona, 2012

Michael Schumacher, Mercedes, Barcelona, 2012

In the round-up: Ross Brawn denies claims Michael Schumacher is about to be offered a contract extension.

F1 links

Brawn denies Schumi talks (Sky)

“We’ll see what happens this year then talk about it. I hope it goes well because that means we’ll be having good results and I think we’d both be happy to continue.”

Motivation never a problem – Kimi (ESPN)

“People always talk about motivation, but the people who write it probably don’t even know me. It’s not a lack of motivation if your car is **** and even if you drive your best and still can’t get a good result. My feeling is that I drove one of my best years in my last year for Ferrari. I’ve never had a problem with motivation.”

Chandhok back in F3 (Formula Three)

Karun Chandhok returned to his roots, and his old British Formula 3 team, at Silverstone when he shook down the T-Sport team?s latest F3 chassis. The Indian former F1 pilot took to the track at the wheel of the squad?s National Class Dallara which will be raced this season by Australian rookie Spike Goddard.”

‘Lewis Hamilton has to refocus and stop wasting so many opportunities’: Martin Brundle talks cars, terrifying crashes and F1 (Daily Mail)

“If you?re going to beat Sebastian Vettel in that Red Bull, you?d better be getting up very early in the morning, and thinking about it all day every day. And I don?t think he has been. Lewis has raw speed and determination, but I think he?s going through a difficult time. He said, ‘If I only win one championship it would suck’ and he?s right.”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

Alianora la Canta laments the shortage of good books on top F1 drivers:

I think it reflects the different priorities of publishers compared to even ten years ago (when even mid-grid drivers could expect someone like Christopher Hilton to write a few words in book form about them).

Nowadays only sure-fire “winners” get backed by the big publishing houses, which tends to mean heroes from the same country as the publishing house in question, plus translated versions of books that worked elsewhere. It?s no coincidence that only three of the six F1 champions have a book written about them in English.
Alianora la Canta

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Hedgey, Kolon and Verstappen!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Sky’s F1 coverage in the UK has attracted much attention. But it’s not the first time the broadcaster has been involved with the sport.

Today in 2002 the Sky Digital channel announced its coverage team for its F1 coverage. Among them was Ben Edwards, who has joined the BBC as commentator this year in place of Martin Brundle, who has gone to Sky.

Former F1 drivers John Watson and Perry McCarthy joined Peter Windsor and Matthew Lorenzo in Sky’s 2002 team.

Image ?? Jamey Price/F1 Fanatic

Advert | Go Ad-free

76 comments on Brawn will wait and see on Schumacher contract extension

  1. Robbie (@robbie) said on 27th February 2012, 13:18

    Personally I have found MS’s driving to be ragged…he has cost himself points on many occasions in the last 2 seasons. I think he has been overdriving the car, and if the field is closer this year I think he will be in a lot more mix-ups and will lose more front wings as a result. He got away with overcooking the car on some occasions too. And if he doesn’t improve his quali efforts on Saturdays I think he will not have the luxury he did of last year when all the other teams were distant from them in the WCC fight. That way his poor quali efforts were masked as eventually on Sunday he was able to catch up to NR. He may seem to be relaxed and having fun but I doubt it has gone the way he would have preferred. Let’s see how he qualifies this year, and let’s see how he does in traffic (that will presumably be closer) when it is not like his Ferrari days when he could just run away from the field and do all his passing through pitting strategies.

  2. RBAlonso (@rbalonso) said on 27th February 2012, 15:52

    Since Schumacher’s comeback I think there is a noticeable difference in the way that he is perceived. In his first career he was portrayed a the pantomime villain but now I think we are seeing the real Schumi. Yes he isn’t a barrel of laughs, but his relaxed persona suggest that he is, first and foremost, back in f1 because he loves it. I think that’s something everyone on here can relate to.

    The media always seek to find ‘the villain’ and atm its almost certainly Alonso. In the future I fully expect it to be Vettel. But maybe it the arrogance of these men that sets them a class apart. The most successful drivers clearly think f1 24/7. Senna did, Schumi did, Alonso and Vettel spend their lives at the factory, even to the detriment of Alonso’s marriage. Arguably, Hamilton’s best seasons were 2007 and 2008 where he seemed far more focussed and all round more intense.

    All in all, I’m glad we’re seeing Schumacher enjoy himself in the sport, I’m all for young drivers but MS, like Michael Jordan in basketball, can stay as long as he likes…he’s earned it.

  3. The Limit said on 27th February 2012, 18:33

    Its hard not to argue with the assumption that Raikkonen ‘did’ get alot from the 2009 Ferrari chassis, but no more than Fernando Alonso did last year with an equally disappointing car. It must have been so frustrating for Raikkonen, and more recently Alonso, to be at such a storied team but to only have a milk float to drive.
    Afterall, from 2000 to 2004, every F1 driver must have looked at the Ferrari with envy. Naturally these were the Schumacher ‘dominant years’, both driver and team being the benchmark to which others aspire. That never happened with Raikkonen, and as yet has not happened for Fernando. Though the latter must have confidence in his team, as he would not have agreed to such a long contract one would imagine. But with Raikkonen, 2009 must have been a chore. The one real highlight ofcourse, being his fantastic victory at Spa Francourchamps.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 27th February 2012, 20:00

      Of course it was a different philosophy at Ferrari back then…and even with the team concentrating solely on MS, it still took a while…a broken leg didn’t help, during which time we saw the team ensure that EI didn’t win the WDC that they were paying MS all that money to win…KR and FA didn’t enjoy the rear gunner in the name of Eddie Irvine that MS had, nor the contracted RB, by his admission after Austria 02, which really confirmed that all along MS had enjoyed a designer car since they weren’t interested in his teammates succeeding, or at least they were never to best MS, never given the chance even in a great car albeit one built for MS.

      I think what MS had at Ferrari was never a reasonable benchmark for others to aspire to, even though BE and MM liked to spin it that way. There’s only one Ferrari in F1, and at the time they were giving it all up for one driver. Now, or going back to KR in 09 and FA since, it has been a much more normal F1 path for them, and while perhaps frustrating and ‘a chore’ at times, I can honour that more normal path far more than the MS/Ferrari way to ‘succeed’ by ensuring no racing between teammates in the pinnacle of racing.

      • Aussie Fan said on 28th February 2012, 5:33

        I don’t understand this comment at all Robbie??

        Ferrari did everything they could to get Eddie Irvine the WDC after Schumi’s accident & as for your comments about rear gunners?

        KR & FA had the EXACT SAME rear gunner as MS…. Felipe Massa. I know what you are trying to imply but it really doesn’t make any sense & takes away from someone’s legitimate achievements at the same time.

        Honestly mate, call it what it is, don’t just put the blinkers on & hate for the sake of it.

        • Harry Palmer said on 28th February 2012, 10:54

          @AussieFan Don’t worry about it, Robbie is a one man hate campaign. He takes every chance going to try and rubbish Schumacher’s achievements and ignores anything that doesn’t fit with his half-baked theories. Maybe he stole his lollipop as a child?!

          “Now, or going back to KR in 09 and FA since, it has been a much more normal F1 path for them, and while perhaps frustrating and ‘a chore’ at times, I can honour that more normal path far more than the MS/Ferrari way to ‘succeed’ by ensuring no racing between teammates in the pinnacle of racing.”

          What, like Hockenheim 2010?!

          • Harry Palmer said on 28th February 2012, 11:06

            @Aussie Fan

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 13:12

            Ferrari did not do everything to get EI the WDC…in one crucial race they even ‘forgot’ a fourth new tire during a pit stop for EI. There is no way they were going to have paid all that money to MS and put all that effort behind him only to have EI, hired not as a WDC level driver to compete against MS but one to be subservient to MS, end the Ferrari WDC drought. Nobody will ever convince me otherwise. And ask JV what he thought EI’s function was at Ferrari…EI’s main purpose was to disrupt the like’s of JV from qualifying well, and to slow traffic in races whenever possible so that MS could extend his lead on competitors. Those are facts. EI, like RB, was not on the team to give MS a hard time, but to support him from race one of each season.

            FM was never a rear gunner for KR or FA…he was even the WDC for about half a lap until LH lucked into it with a slow lap from Glock after FM did everything right that day and LH did everything to lose it and almost did.

            And I’m glad you brought up Hockenheim, Harry Palmer…that was the type of decision I could understand as opposed to MS getting full support from a subservient driver from race one of each season he was at Ferrari. At least FA had to earn the number one status. Ferrari found themselves with an opportunity to elevate FA, who was showing to be the stronger driver, and was the one looking to have some effect on the Red Bulls who were looking to be very difficult to beat that year. The very fact they had to make a team order mid-race and mid-season, much to FM’s dismay, and forcing him to tell the world ‘he was no RB’ was refreshing to me coming from Ferrari, and coming off the MS/Ferrari era. It meant FM was not there to be subservient, there was no contract saying so, and it was simply the type of decision that all teams have to make at some time when the odds favour one driver over another, particularly when another team is threatening to run away with it. Hockenheim 2010 was for me how F1 should work. MS/Ferrari was exactly the opposite, and an example of manipulation of the viewing audience as they pretended that they were for both drivers but their actions proved the opposite.

            Some people need to take the blinkers off, stop calling me hateful, and understand that I am really stating facts, not some hate filled stuff of my own invention. There are many many who agree with my view.

            Also, as to rubbishing MS’s achievements…I think that by taking the blinkers off you will see that it takes a lot more than a good driver to compile all the numbers he did…look at Austria 02 as one glaring example…and…if all that MS was given wasn’t enough, earned some say but I say from being in illegal Benettons, he still had to go out there a be an unethical bully on the track.

            What I have is big disrespect for that, but hate is far too strong a word.

            Relating all this to today and the concept of a contract extension for MS, what we have been seeing for the last two seasons is an MS that doesn’t have a designer car on the most resourced team in F1, with unlimited testing, and he actually finally has a teammate that is allowed to compete against him from race one. And the results? NR has beat him two seasons in a row. Unprecedented for MS. Just shows, MS is no different from any F1 driver…they usually need the best car to win the WDC, and as soon as they have a teammate that is allowed to compete against them life is not nearly so easy.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 13:19

            Meant to make another point or state it a little differently…MS himself imho, not me, is the one that rubbished his own achievements with his constant unethical behaviour and the hand up he needed every season with a contracted subservient teammate of non-WDC level. What F1 allowed to happen at Ferrari in the MS era is something I hope never gets repeated.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th February 2012, 15:27

            @robbie, I think you are getting carried away there. I have no doubt, that Ferrari was seriously doing their best to try and win the championship with Ervine after Schumacher broke his leg.

            But even without ignoring the obvious difference in driving skills, Schumacher’s drive and charisma also were gone.

            And arguably Ferrari threw their chances away early when they had Ervine give up positions to Schumacher earlier that same year!

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 15:58

            @BasCB…of course it doesn’t take for me to say that everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I stick by mine that there was no way they were going to put all that money and effort behind MS only to have his underling end the (at the time approx. 18 year) Ferrari WDC drought.

            And I think the proof of that is by your own admission the fact that EI had to give up positions for MS earlier that same year. Why? Just because MS ‘earned’ it by winning WDC’s in illegal Benetton’s? With, after the 94 season, the media hounding Briatore and BE and the FIA as to how MS could be allowed to keep his WDC from 94?

            I firmly believe that MM and BE saw the need to create a new chapter post-Senna, with MS moved to ever struggling Ferrari and away from the absolute mess that had become MS/Benetton, with the deal of the century in terms of money, much of the Benetton team moving to Ferrari with MS to continue their ways, and with a subservient driver and therefore a designer car for MS to boot.

            EI was never WDC material…Ferrari hired him to support MS and dishonoured the viewing audience by not taking on two top drivers on the most resourced team to both go at the WDC until the math dictated one of them had the better shot.

            In other words, if Ferrari were truly interested in either of their drivers winning the WDC they wouldn’t have hired EI to begin with, let alone had him ceding positions well before the math should have dictated that.

            Also, as I recall it, once MS was well enough to come back did they not practically have to insist on his return, practically drag him out of his house, he more willing to stay at home than to have to feign a support role to EI.

            There was never a genuine push for EI to win the WDC once MS got hurt. Post-Senna F1/FIA became all about creating a new chapter with MS/Ferrari at all costs. Without Senna there was no longer anyone of that era, so a new era was created. Not just allowed to happen…created. MS at Ferrari was not a fair apples to apples comparison to the rest of the field and the numbers compilation is the proof.

          • Rcciardo Patrese:
            “Michael raced against drivers like Senna, Mansell and myself and proved immediately that he could be competitive and better,” the Italian wrote on his personal website.

            “Now we have drivers like Hamilton and Vettel who look very good but I don’t think they are better than Senna, Mansell or the drivers that were around when Michael started in F1, so I think Michael is a little below the level of performance compared to his very best.

            “Michael proved himself against the best when he started in Formula One so if he can’t match the best today perhaps it is because he does not have the best car, but in the past without the right car he was able to make the difference; now he can’t make the difference. If he had the best car now he could still win races, but in the past, even without the best car, he could win.

            “Today he is a good driver but he cannot make the same difference as he could in the past from what I have seen at the beginning of this year and last year. You know how much I respect Michael and his talent but from what I have seen this is not the same Michael as before his retirement. I have my doubts about whether this is because of the tyres or the new regulations. Maybe his motorcycle and neck injury has had an effect in some small way. The difference can be very, very small but there seems to be a difference.”
            http://www.planet-f1.com/news/3213/7554624/-Schumacher-Is-A-Different-Driver-Now-

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 18:29

            And around and around we go. I stand by my opinion.
            I do find it laughable that you can defend MS/Ferrari for Austria 02 just because team orders were ‘legal’ then, when you should know very well that the intention was never to use ‘legal’ team orders so blatantly that they had the results they did. F1 embarassed. Fans outraged and disgusted. MS trying to hand RB the trophy on the stand. RB admitting in the post-race interview that he was just obeying his contract. If team orders were so ‘legal’ then, why the outrage when it happened. Why the rule change after that?

            It had enough impact such that the rule was changed. And even then the spirit of the rule change imho was not ‘no team orders’ because we all know there are a thousand ways a team can do team orders without anybody knowing it, without the FIA being able to police it. The spirit of the ‘no team orders’ rule was no blatant team orders like Austria 02 which was so bad it forced FIA to make a stand on the issue.

            At least at Hockenheim 2010 the decision made some mathematical sense due to Red Bull’s strength and FM’s lagging too far behind FA to be the team’s go-to guy. And they got fined for the radio communication. A radio communication that by the way the FIA allowed the world to hear amongst umpteen communications that we did not get to here that day and throughout the season. So they themselves were instrumental in manipulating controversy. And the end result? Team orders are now ‘legal’ again. How much you want to bet that would be revisited if we had another incident like Austria 02…but of course we won’t because MS uniquely had his teammates under contract, as RB pointed out after that race. No other driver had before or has had since a teammate under contract such as RB admitted to the world. You may want to deny RB had a contract because you have also heard him tow the party line at times and deny it, sometimes probably so as not to embarass himself, but the world saw his actions which are all the proof in the world needed.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th February 2012, 21:05

            Well, @robbie, I didn’t intend to imply that Ferrari ever thought they had hired Eddy for anything else than to be the support act to Der Schumi.
            But to think they were not really serious with having a go at gaining that first title in ages when there was a slight chance of it, be it with their 2nd tier driver, sounds too much conspiracy theory to me.

            I for cannot imagine any reason why Ferrari would not want to win. Indeed their ruthlessness in winning is what I dislike in the team recently.

          • repost @Robbie
            Sound to me it was containing hate there. clearly from the first time when Alonso join he is the no.1 driver you can see how the boss praises him and one thing that stood up is his salary is bigger than Massa if you are saying Alonso earn his place in Ferrari then so does Schumacher, as many experts said not juts your armchair speak your mind thing. Even Brawn, Todt and other trusted experts including jackie Stewart stated that he help ferrari turn into domination team, he earned from his commitment, hardwork etc so saying Schumacher didn’t earn his place from the first time imo is a rubbish statement.

            And you brought up Austria 2002 with Hockenheim 2010 and said that how F1 should work how come it be??? You are entitled to your opinion about the swap thing but at least at Austria 2002 team order was legal and Hockenheim 2010 was illegal so breaching rule was better than not breaching the rule?? you gotta be kidding me. And you said no contract on Massa to be a no.2 do you have any strong evidence stated that Rubens or Irvine got the no.2 contract? As i know Rubens in his interview said there havn’t. Imo clearly Schumacher completeness is better than both Irvine and Rubens. And where you heard that Ferrari didn’t want Irvine to be the WC?? just conspiracy theories? As i know Schumacher after his comebabck from leg injury was trying to help irvine to become WC and you never heard Irvine said anything about that as he was one of sharp tongue in F1. Even Rosberg in his interview said that Schumacher critism unwarranted “When i ask him a question he doesn’t lie to me. You can work with him and that was a nice surprise after what i had heard”

            Thus couldn’t blame some people to call you hateful as from your post most of it contain imo hateful against Schumacher even when he did well you still trying to degrading him just based on your armchair conpiracey theories.

            it’s your opinion saying Rosberg beat him 2 years in a row but i have toi disagree with that as in 2010 he was far from his prime and 2011 he certainly improve you heard from the reports but for some reason such as the DNF(mechanical failure etc) he would already match Rosberg in points you couldn’t take that fact out.

            so you are saying all Schumacher achievements all done by unethical behaviour, bully on track?? i think you are the one foolling yourself thus i bet lot of lot of people don’t understand you and find your objection to Schumacher quiet nonsense. As for Many many agree with you?? who?? probably the Schumacher hater? then i couldn’t say much.

        • Same here i lol on your conspiracy theories as well how you trying hard out to dig out imo quiet nonsense theories to degrade Schumacher achievement, Bernie and FIA create new hero past Senna on Schumacher?? hahaha. It’s a matter of opinion on that if you don’t like it it’s your thing fact it was legal and yourself comparing to 2010 Hockenheim saying that was fine despite it was done when team order was illegal now you tell me? The point is the 2002 it was legal so if they changed to illegal in the future years doesn’t change the fact that 2002 was legal.

          “At least at Hockenheim 2010 the decision made some mathematical sense due to Red Bull’s strength”
          So i ask you again breaching rule is better than not breaching the rule as 2002 legal 2010 illegal as long as not Schumacher that done it?? So the legal become illegal the illegal become legal in your mind??

          When Rubens admitted to the world show me?? As i remember in his interview saying there was no such thing you call no2 contract in his.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 19:24

            I’m sure you can You Tube for the post-race interview of Austria 02.

            I’ve already explained my position on team orders. You don’t seem to want to accept that what MS/Ferrari did was unacceptable because in your opinion what they did was legal. So I ask you again, why the outrage then? Why did fans leave the stands in disgust? Why did the FIA feel the need to change the rule? If it was acceptable and appropriate because it was legal, then why the consequences from that race? Do you think I invented the fallout from that race?

            Since I’ve already explained my position on team orders as they pertain to Austria 02 and Hockenhein 2010 I’ll just give you an analogy.

            In many countries it is legal to own a gun. Does that make it legal and acceptable and appropriate to shoot someone with it?

          • And how you explain in his recent interview he said there were no such thing? What Rubens was trying to say then?

            Lol you keep missiong my point or you are trying to bend it as you know you are in a wrong position? My point was replying to your saying about can tolerate the 2010 where it was legal but somehow saying the 2002 can’t accepted where it was legal? Some fans outrage about it it was their right but like i said couldn’t change the fact that the 2002 was in legal situation.

            I ask you again you havn’t really replying this
            “At least at Hockenheim 2010 the decision made some mathematical sense due to Red Bull’s strength”
            So i ask you again breaching rule is better than not breaching the rule as 2002 legal 2010 illegal as long as not Schumacher that done it?? So the legal become illegal the illegal become legal in your mind?? Try to concentrate on the question keep the fans outrage etc aside for a moment or the rule changed in the years come.

            “In many countries it is legal to own a gun. Does that make it legal and acceptable and appropriate to shoot someone with it?”
            Huh what kind of replying was that lol?? you really running out of argument aren’t you. how come the FIA team order rule could been paralled with the gun thing shoot someone thing huh again huh?

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 20:15

            I’ve stated my position…I don’t feel the need to repeat myself. Reread my posts. There’s little more I can add and nothing you are trying to say will ever change my mind.

          • I don’t find the answer instead i think you are trying to avoid it. Lol i don’t care you will change your mind or not it’s your thing i just replying to stated my opinion which i found some of your posts imo quiet nonsense.

          • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th February 2012, 21:42

            @BasCB…better be careful with that ‘Eddy as support act to Der Schumi’ talk…Cx9 won’t have it…lol.

            Again though, I think you have said something significant in pointing out the ‘slight’ chance that their ’2nd tier’ driver had of winning. Let’s get away from calling my stance a conspiracy theory, and let’s just consider it what I always have (selling out, or a purely business decision that robbed us of sport), or let me word it as Patrick Head did in the late 90′s…’what a shame they forgo the spirit of racing for the sake of share value.’

            It was a business decision they made to do an unprecedented thing in F1 (take the sport out of it) that no team had done before, nor has any team gone nearly so far as they did since.

            It was a team philosophy that I abhorred, and is what left EI unable to win that WDC because it simply was not in the team’s makeup. They never intended MS to hurt himself leaving themselves to have to deal with EI as their primary driver. He was driving a car built for MS. It simply was not in the team’s heart to have invested in MS as a Ferrari lifer only to have EI win the WDC. They simply were not going to have it, as I say not necessarily because of a conspiracy against him, nor even a conspiracy, but a ‘movement’ let’s call it, a plan, that I believe involved MM, BE and Ferrari to make MS the next icon post-Senna. That was to be the next chapter of F1 post Senna’s era. Not ‘EI ends Ferrari WDC drought’. It’s not like BE having been instrumental in suggesting moves of drivers over to other teams was ever conspiratorial…he has always tried to mold the entity of F1. I just disagree wholeheartedly with the lengths they were willing to go to in setting MS up.

            If they wanted either driver to end the Ferrari WDC drought while caring about giving the viewing audience the pinnacle of racing in the pinnacle of racing, they wouldn’t have hired EI and they would have hired a better driver worthy of the Ferrari heritage to challenge MS and have both drivers push each other, while thrilling the audience at the same time.

          • And be careful with the “conspiracy theories” thing that will keep @Robbie walking in his own world((hero post Senna etc etc))depeer and deeper..lol.

            We will never really know what happening inside the teams as the team order thing not only applied by Ferrari Jordan as well and any other teams even when the team order was deem illegal and arguably when Jordan applied it the hype was not that big comparing to the Schumacher/Ferrari one up untill Ferrai 2002 the rule then set to changed why was that? And about the team no 1 no 2 driver imo clearly in Mclaren Hakkinen is the No1 driver and Couldhard No 2 which i can say fair enough as Hakkinen was in term of evrything was better than Coulthard.

  4. Chris (@scuderiacp) said on 27th February 2012, 20:19

    I have always supported Michael. However I think in the new F1 he just doesn’t have the edge at his age to be competitive. There’s nothing wrong with that. The older I get (35 now) I am slower than I was 10 years ago. With this in mind, it’s time for him to seriously hang it up. There really isn’t anything else for the guy to accomplish. Let a young driver take that spot and work his way up through the ranks.

    Get back into Ferrari somehow. They need you.

  5. summers (@summers) said on 28th February 2012, 1:47

    “Chandhok back in F3 (Formula Three)” – good news for F1!

  6. Alain (@paganbasque) said on 28th February 2012, 9:22

    Absolutely logic, both the team and Michael need time to see if team is really ready to build a winner car, and obviously Michael is 43, so he has to check if he is capable to continue being fast. Nothing should be decided until the end of the season.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.