Bruno Senna, Williams, Barcelona, 2012

Schumacher given grid penalty for Senna collision

2012 Spanish Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Bruno Senna, Williams, Barcelona, 2012Michael Schumacher will be docked five places on the grid for the Monaco Grand Prix following his collision with Bruno Senna during today’s race.

Schumacher ran into the back of the Williams at turn one on lap 13 while trying to overtake Senna.

Schumacher blamed Senna for the crash, calling him an “idiot” on his team radio afterwards. He added later: “I want the stewards to clarify what happened. He moved to the right, but he shouldn’t move back in the braking place to the left that sharply.

“I’m just behind him and I don’t know how sharply he is going to move. So it was all very dangerous.”

Schumacher recalled another collision between their pair in Brazil last year, saying: “I don’t know what he was trying to prove but in Brazil last year he was driving into my car and today he was doing funny things.

“A lap before he had an accident together with Grosjean so I don’t know what he was going through his mind.”

Senna blamed Schumacher for the crash which ended both their races: “For sure he had much better tyres than I did at that point, I had quite old tyres. But he decided to try to drive on the inside but he didn’t move there early enough and I had to brake earlier than him so he just hit me.”

2012 Spanish Grand Prix

Browse all 2012 Spanish Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Daimler/Hoch Zwei

237 comments on “Schumacher given grid penalty for Senna collision”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4
  1. I’ve expected Bruno would not be penalized…

    1. why should Bruno be penaltized? Yea, he changed line about tyre width, but it has nothing to do with incident or line changing rule. Schumi’s head is just too slow to decide, if he tries to go inside or outside..

      1. I said he would NOT be penalized. I didn’t say anything else or blame him.

    2. Me too, Schumacher misjudged Senna’s braking on older tyres, Senna did seem a bit unsure where Schumi would go (the wobble) but it’s the car behind that has to watch where he goes.

      1. I completely agree, it was a complete misjudgment on Schumacher’s part and rightfully he should be penalised; Senna did nothing wrong.
        Funny how Schumacher has got himself into so much trouble during his return and Räikkonen has avoided incident, obviously shows the age gap.

        1. Racing incident.

          Webber and Kovy in Valencia was exactly the same and no pen for Webber.

          1. Yep, exactly but Webber has the luck that his name isn’t “Hamilton” or “Schumacher”.

          2. That wasn’t caused by being in the braking zone. Not that I remember anyway.

          3. I think you’ll find that for the ‘Lotus’ of Kovy he was in the braking zone.
            And regardless, does that even matter? Are you saying that its ok to run up the back of someone as long as its not in the braking zone.

            I am by no means a MS fan but i’ve got to defend him here. Those minor movements that Senna made at 195ish mph clearly had Michael confused and consequently he run out of space to commit to his line.
            Maybe Senna didnt know where he was, but twitching around like that in the braking zone is a lot worse that choosing to go defensive and squeezing your opponent as much as poss.

            I dont think either are innocent so a 50/50 racing incident would have been fair.

            I think the fact that Webber thankfully managed to escape serious injury made people overlook the fact that he deserved a penalty but nonetheless, he should have got one.

          4. I agree with you 100%. This was a racing incident. In racing, drivers must make split-second decisions in the braking zone dependent on their perception of where the driver in front is going to place their car. In both the Webber crash and the Schumi crash, the leading driver made a half-move, causing the following driver to make a split-second instinctual decision to adjust their line. In both cases, the guess was wrong, but neither was an example of stupidity or over-aggression – this is just how racing goes sometimes.

            In my opinion, split-second instinctual reactions of the racing driver should not be punished – this is simply how they are trained to operate. Stupidity should be punished, and dangerous moves should be punished, and neither of those were present here. I’m normally the last one to ever defend Schumi but in this instance I think he was unfairly penalized…

          5. This is silly, all drivers have done things that can get them criticized, and if you want you can bang on about just about any of them.

            When you look at an incident, you have to disregard that. Otherwise your opinion will be staggeringly biased.

            Me? Schumacher fan, and I think the penalty was… Not unfair… It reminds me of when Alonso was penalized for running into the back of someone at Sepang. Whether Schumacher could have avoided it, he ruined another drivers race by being too aggressive. We have seen time and time again that hurting another drivers race will net you a penalty.

    3. Is it just me or Senna had a different type of tires at font and rear?

    4. @Sherrif – Schumacher ran straight up the back of him, Senna made movements no wider than a tyres width. He didn’t factor in the fact his car was on much fresher rubber and changed direction too late, so it is his fault.
      Webber’s accident was as much Heikki’s fault for his change of direction as Webber’s, Schumacher changed direction and hit him.

  2. Schumacher complains that Senna “moves right and left”. Senna changes line by perhaps a tyres-width. Schumacher actually changes line significantly and slams into the back of him with massive closing speed.

    A fair penalty I think.

    1. @james_mc Agreed – Senna did nothing wrong and Schumacher hit him from behind. Pretty clear-cut.

      1. DK (@seijakessen)
        13th May 2012, 18:03

        @keithcollantine What I find interesting about Schumacher is that he is one of the biggest whiners when it comes to these incidents, while maintaining a selective memory regarding his own deeds over the past 20 years in F1. I remember his “battle” with Damon Hill at Spa in 1995 when he resorted to defending his position with multiple line changes nearly causing a collision multiple times with Damon Hill. Then there was his attempt to take out Jacques Villeneuve at Jerez in 1997. Schumacher is the dirtiest driver of the last 20 F1 seasons, and for him to whine the way he was about Bruno Senna is absolutely disgusting. He has an inability to accept responsibility for his own stupidity, the 5 grid penalty is fully warranted.

        1. “Schumacher is the dirtiest driver of the last 20” Do you remember what Hill did in Monza 1995, in Canada 1998…..or the best one….Coulthrad in 1998 in Spa….I suppose you are a Senna fan, so I could remind you that your idol had the same opinion

          1. DK (@seijakessen)
            13th May 2012, 20:17

            Schumacher/Hill Adelaide 1994 is another of his greatest hits. Same with what he did to Mika Hakkinen in F3 at Macau in 1990. The Coulthard incident at Spa in ’98 could have been avoided if Schumacher had been more careful. Senna was never anywhere near as dirty as Schumacher BTW. He wasn’t perfect, but he knew when to cede position, which is something Schumacher always had an inability to do.

          2. @krss77 *Do you remember what Hill did in Monza 1995, in Canada 1998…..or the best one….Coulthrad in 1998 in Spa*
            Well put and any other controversial things that most of all F1 drivers did.

            @seijakessen Or it’s your own greatest hits i still believe 1994 Schumacher/Hill was racing incident or Hill just overconfidence to overtake, Murray walker believe on that “He’s just regaining his racing line”:
            Senna was great but one of the dirtiest and ruthless driver you can google it and see the result. Pls don’t be just one sided view

          3. @seijakessen Sorry buddy, I too think Senna was at least as dirty as Schumacher. The thing about Senna and Prost is that back on those days those moves were not vehemently condemned. Maybe Schumi inherited some of that spirit, the guy is over four decades old after all, maybe he needs to adapt.

        2. @DK

          I don’t think you can fairly compare the situation of Spa 1995 to today. The accepted driving back then was completely different.

          The irony of your post though is that you’ve got a display picture of Ayrton Senna. Where do you think Schumacher learnt his driving style from!?

          1. Agreed with @KRSS77 and @cduk_mugello
            And how about Webber and Kovalainen at Valencia 2010 Webber(luckily he is ok) escaped with no penalty

          2. DK (@seijakessen)
            13th May 2012, 20:23

            @cduk_mugello Schumacher was already doing his crap before he ever got to F1. That’s a fact. The so often cited example of Suzuka 1990 as the factual basis for Ayrton Senna’s “dirty driving” completely overlooks what transpired that weekend going into the Grand Prix —the switching of the pole position to the dirty side of the track and constant favoritism by Balestre towards Alain Prost— that caused Senna to feel like he had his back up against the wall. Don’t forget what transpired at Suzuka in 1989 as well with the sham ruling against him. Apples and oranges…as I said, Schumacher is one of the dirtiest drivers in F1 history, and someone who blatantly cheated throughout the 1994 season.

          3. @DK
            Giving all of the context of Suzuka 1990 doesn’t change anything, Senna still rammed his opponent off the track. Sure he had his reasons – he didn’t want to lose. Which is pretty much why Schumacher rammed into Villeneuve in 97.

            I just think it’s really hypocritical of you to criticise Schumacher for dirty driving, yet seemingly hero worship Ayrton Senna, the original “dirty driver”.

            Anyhow, I think it’s pretty clear that you can’t really stand Schumacher. Maybe that clouds your judgement on this?

          4. Senna was never a dirty driver. He was sometimes overly forceful but never dirty. Schumacher on the other hand could have killed Hill in what was a purposeful and cynical crash designed to end hills race and hence secure the championship for himself. I still believe to this day that he should never have been allowed to race in F1 again after that. I do not take away from his skill as a driver, but that was an unforgivable incident. Todays crash was not purposeful but was completely schumachers fault. He massively misjudged the whole move.

          5. @@cduk_mugello Well said

            @Lee1 “Schumacher on the other hand could have killed Hill”
            That’s one exaggerating view and one sided, if you put it this way Schumacher-Hill 1994 incident was in slow corner at slow speed whereas Senna-Prost was at high speed so put your one sided view away and see it without your tainted glasses which one was more dangerous and at high risk.
            And for your info not all agree that 1994 Schumacher_Hill was Schumi fault, Murray Walker and me is one of them:

          6. DK (@seijakessen)
            14th May 2012, 15:35


            Good god cduk, you know what is incredible, people still seem to think Senna rammed Prost off the track. He didn’t. When you have a chance, go look at the video again. You will see Senna was near the inside of the track by the curbs, he did not move into Prost. Prost moved over towards the inside and made contact with Senna. Yes Senna was in a bad spot, however he never moves the car into Prost. So you’re actually wrong completely about Senna “ramming” him off the track. It never happened.

            Schumacher on the other hand, tried to RAM Jacques Villeneuve off the track at Jerez and wound up in the gravel trap instead. Big difference. He did the same thing to Damon Hill in 1994 at Adelaide. Damon Hill should have been world champion in 1994, not Schumacher.

            BTW, just a little heads up, Schumacher and Benetton were supposed to be kicked out of the 1994 World Championship due to blatant cheating and rules violations, until the decision as influenced by the FiA or more specifically Max Mosely. Do some research into it. Schumacher represents everything wrong with F1 in the last 18 years.

          7. @seijakessen Good god back at you…Senna himself has admitted he drove into Prost, i might as well can said that Schumacher did not move to Villeneuve which the fact he did so did Senna to Prost, you are free to defend in your own way as people already know the fact.

            That’s according to you but Murray Walker didn’t think so as i explained it above: “He’s just regaining his racing line”:

            Why he should be kicked out from 1994?? Benetton wasn’t the one involved in the controversy, Mclaren and Ferrari as well: “Following the San Marino Grand Prix, the Benetton, Ferrari and McLaren teams were investigated on suspicion of breaking the FIA-imposed ban on electronic aids. Benetton and McLaren initially refused to hand over their source code for investigation. When they did so, the FIA discovered hidden functionality in both teams’ software, but no evidence that it had been used in a race. Both teams were fined $100,000 for their initial refusal to cooperate. However, the McLaren software, which was a gearbox program that allowed automatic shifts, was deemed legal. By contrast, the Benetton software was deemed to be a form of “launch control” that would have allowed Schumacher to make perfect starts, which was explicitly outlawed by the regulations. However, there was no evidence to suggest that this software was actually used.”

            He got punished for the incident he involve and then still managed to beat Damon Hill.

            “Schumacher represents everything wrong with F1 in the last 18 years.”……Keep talking, just keep talking….No sense

          8. @DK

            Mate, you’re not the only one who’s watched F1 since the early 90s.

            I’m a massive Schumacher fan, but that does not stop me accepting his flaws. But if you can’t accept that Senna ran Prost off the track in 1990.. well.. that speaks volumes.

          9. DK (@seijakessen)
            14th May 2012, 20:42

            CX9, I am not doing your work for you. Look it up…Benetton was set to be kicked out of the World Championship that year for numerous rules violations across the course of the entire season. Do you happen to recall when they ran illegal refueling rig for more than half the season, and only got caught when Jos Verstappen’s car went up in flames at Hockenheim in July? BTW, there’s a lot of people who believe Schumacher’s B-194 had traction control that year…it did have all of the codes for it on the car. One of the Benetton mechanics said the B-194 had “everything but cruise control” years later.

            CK, if you understood anything whatsoever about Formula One’s history, you would understand that F1’s current problems stem in large part from the 1994 season. Don’t forget all of the rule changes that were made to help Schumacher and Ferrari over the years.

            BTW Murray Walker also said once that Ukyo Katayama was the best grand prix driver Formula 1 ever produced. I suppose because it’s Murray Walker who said it, we should all take it at face value. LOL

          10. @seijakessen The point was they couldn’t actually prove it was used, He got punished for what he done but still managed to outscored Damon Hill at the end of the season.

            “Don’t forget all of the rule changes that were made to help Schumacher and Ferrari over the years.” You forgot 2005 they changed the rule to stop Ferrari-Schumacher domination. Schumacher through his dedication, hardwork+the dream team that turn the team into successful years. Next time everyone can said FIA changed the rule to help Vettel-RedBull, Mclaren-Hamilton, Senna-Mclaren and so on so on which is no sense.

            He probably meant the best Japanese GP driver….anyway just because you believe 1994 Schumacher rammed into hill doesn’t make you right either. Murray Walker is one of the most respected in F1 community and i agree with his point(Schumacher-Hill 1994).

      2. Aditya (@)
        14th May 2012, 8:50

        Remember Webber and Kovalainen at Valencia? What is the difference?

        1. I think the difference between that one and this one is that Kovalainen misunderstood what position he was at. By this, I mean that he thought he was being lapped. You can see he broke far before his own braking zone, even for the Caterham, and broke on the right hand side of the track to let Webber through, however, they were racing for position and Webber knew this, so tried to get as much slip out of Kovalainen, and then was caught out by this, and couldn’t dive back out. (This is something I’ve heard from somewhere before on the incident).

          This may not be the case though, and even if it’s not, watching the replay over and over again with Webber and Kovalainen, I think that one was more of a 50-50 incident than this one. Yes, he was hit from behind by Webber, but the braking distances on that Caterham was ridiculously far ahead, and considering the braking points on that Caterham wasn’t anything like the extra distance he needed there in the laps before, it would have been hard for Webber, who was clearly trying to steal the slip stream, but for too long, definitely too long. This one was more 50-50 because the braking distances were so vastly different, too different if you ask me (I think Kovalainen wasn’t really battling too hard, and was trying to give Webber the racing line, and broke earlier to let him through, but didn’t realise he was behind him) but Webber was far to aggressive following him, but because of the huge braking distance difference, I think there was a pardon. It’s also possibly because of the seriousnesss of the incident, people possibly would have complained about it, and it’s also possible that it wasn’t a penalty for Webber because of the fact it was a Caterham car he hit, (very unlikely I would assume though).

          So yeah, my view is that is was 50-50, Kovalainen possibly should have been more aware of Webber’s position, but Webber shouldn’t have followed behind for so long.

          1. Watching it from multiple angles, I notice that Webber actual follows Kov whilst Kov goes left, and quite sharply too. Definitely misjudged by Webber, but I think it was because of the vast braking differences again, granted, he possibly should have tried to pull out earlier, considering that the braking distances would mean he’d have got through anyway. So, to continue on my point above, rather than it being 50-50, I am thinking that it’s more in Webber’s ball park on being his fault. However, I still maintain that the penalty wasn’t given for the same reasons as I previously stated.

          2. There’s no difference at all @philereid.

      3. Mark (@marlarkey)
        14th May 2012, 10:00

        Schumacher weaved about for his passing move, misjudged it and ploughed into the back of Senna. The worst you can say about Senna is that he moved fractionally right then later moved fractionally left (back towards the racing line) but even so he left (by a long way) the required cars width between his car and the the edge of the track (on both sides). Senna didn’t do anything wrong, Schumacher did.

        Two interesting points…

        1. Schumacher is accussing Senna of doing only whtat he did himself last year that led to the introduction of the “car’s width” rule in the first place. Even though Senna’s driving wasn’t as Schumacher described and was nothing like the weaving that Schumacher was doing regularly last year when he was being put under pressure.

        2. Is Schumacher just maintaining an outward public stance on the incident (ie lying about it in public but privately knowing that it was his fault) or does he genuinely and within himself believe what he has said in public (ie that he is deluded and losing his judgement ? Neither seem good.

        1. I think the pressure of under-performing for so long is getting to him.

    2. I forgot to add – the character assassination by Schu to influence the stewards’ decision is hardly befitting a 7-time world champion…

      1. kowalsky is back
        13th May 2012, 19:35

        and to add insult to ingury didn’t have any effect.
        He has not place in f1 anymore.
        He is a great and he should retire with some dignity. It is sad to see a world champion not knowing when to call it a career.

    3. The problem is that at that speed you are reacting to the first indication of movement to decide where to go. If you jink a small bit like Senna did, it has the same affect as a head fake in football.

      1. Mark (@marlarkey)
        14th May 2012, 10:13

        Does a “jink” of maybe half a tyre width either to the right or the left mean that you can assume that the car in front is going to continue moving out of your way and vacate the space in front of you to let you drive through it ?

        They were racing…. it wasn’t a blue flag situation…. so the onus is on Schumacher to get past. And he’s either got to do that on the left (where there was plenty of room) or on the right (where there was plenty of room)… he can’t drive through Senna’s space assuming he’s not going be there.

        The real racers are the ones who can find a way to get past people not those who expect the guy in front to get out of your way and make it easy for you.

        1. i know we all are entitled to our opinion but in the end it still remain our own view of things. To suggest schu coming back to f1 is a mistake is absurd. Come one he is only the greatest driver in f1 and ask any of the retired f1 racers given the opportunity to drive competitively an f1 car will they take it? And i bet 11 out of 10 will.

          1. Playing catchup after being away for the weekend. DK…I agree with everything you have said.

            My bottom line…MS made another bonehead move of the type he has been making for 3 years now. Prior to that he only proved what records a good driver can break by having record breaking resources thrown at him post-Senna, including contracted subservient teammates. MS did nothing more than what many drivers would have been able to do with the same massive resources, only they wouldn’t have felt the need, nor would it have been within the vast majority of them, to be such a complete bully on top of being spoiled with unprecedented advantages.

            Comparing other drivers’ indiscretions pales in comparison to the career long misbehaviour of MS. What a shame he had to take all he was given and be as he was with it. He is showing now that without the massive resources and advantages, and with a competing teammate, he cannot handle the pressure, which we also saw signs of in his last year at Ferrari. Many of the times that MS doesn’t start from pole and run away with it, he chokes or does something controversial. He still shows us his true stripes with not only his error on Senna on the weekend but with his denial of blame, and rather accusations, with even as obvious a blunder as occured on his part.

            I’m glad everyone is now seeing the true MS, upon his return to F1.

          2. Ah @Robbie off course you are agreeing when talk about Schumacher mistake you will exaggerating it to whole new level, your level. Othe posters critisize Schumacher can put a balance view rather tha most often time one sided(like you) and put it 99% post directly to Schumacher mistake and his greatness….no 0% much like saying no drivers in F1 ever made mistake.

            Luckily not all agree with yours just like this article i think it is well balance: “Why post-Spain criticism of Schumacher is wrong ”
            “Ultimately Mercedes have to ask themselves if Schumacher can win them a championship as that is what the team is striving for. In a great car it’s certainly still very feasible.

            However he doesn’t seem to be able to transcend a car that is off the pace like he could do in his peak, in the same way we are seeing Fernando Alonso currently achieving at Ferrari.”

            I’m glad not everyone seeing the one sided true

          3. Seems like you and I agree that without the best car MS is unable to do much, unlike FA who is managing to do better things with a sub-par car.

            Picking out one article that favours what you want to hear does not make your opinion the right one nor make it an automatic that MS could win another WDC. Right now it seems like the team may be hard pressed to win another race let alone the WDC, in spite of NR winning his first ever race with this car. More often than not it seems tires are a big issue for them, and of course not just them.

            For now, MS is looking to be beaten 3 years straight by his teammate, and that does not bode well for his future nor his ego. There are reasons so far for his bad luck, but at the same time one can’t help feeling that even if his luck improves it doesn’t mean he is going to start dominating anyone…not NR, nor any other of the 5 winners in 5 races we have had. I think the best MS can hope for right now is to match NR and for them to both try to get the car at least up to 3rd in the WCC which was one of their goals at the start of the season. Seems a bit out of reach right now but there is a lot of the season to go. I think, given that MS will be starting further back in Monaco, ie. another unlucky weekend but this one brought about by his error on Senna that will see him affected for two races, MS will start to overdrive the car and make further mistakes out of frustration with being behind NR, and out of frustration with the tires.

            All that said, I do think, the way this season has gone, he could win a race yet…but outpoint NR? Don’t think so. Unless he keeps qualifying out of the top 10 or gets into Q3 and doesn’t run a hot lap and tries to get a tire advantage over NR with either of those two scenarios. Win the WDC? No way.

          4. No no you read it all wrong might be down to your judgment about Schumi, just like my last posts this year and last year i stated Michael since his comeback not in his prime/peak anymore but still managed to outraced some of the younger competitors in some ocassion that speaks volume. But i never agree that he unable to push the sub par car beyond it capable when he was on his prime like many and this article i just posted believe in it too. Read it carefully.

            And it doesn’t make your the right one especially judging from your last posts much of i think one sided and most of the article including trusted or i think more capable seem agree on that contrast with yours one sided view.

            I have my opinion like i have posted many many times that saying Schumacher since his comeback not the same like he used too(and there lot people believe on that) So i still stand on my opinion that last years he share bad luck and technical failure(more than Rosberg) that prevented him from outscoring him pulling those circumstances he already beaten him and this year i don’t know what F1 you are watching 4 races from car failure that preventing him to got point adn qualy he managed convincingly to beat Rosberg and in of the race because DRS problem that causing top spot. Win WDC might be out of reach this year amd we can said the same thing about Nico mmm have to wait and wait to get WDC and personally 7 WDC?? i don’t think soooo.

          5. Read my posts carefully and you will see that I will never agree with your opinion.

          6. I feel like talking to a brick, when did i ever said you agree with me i’m responding to your comment :”Seems like you and I agree that without the best car MS is unable to do much, unlike FA who is managing to do better things with a sub-par car.” Then i said you got me wrong i never agree with that comment. errmmmm read it carefully pls

          7. Omg, maybe you should read your own post more carefully…you state that you like an article that you refer to by the f1times for being “well balanced”, and from that article you even pick out a quote…”However he doesn’t seem to be able to transcend a car that is off the pace like he could do in his peak, in the same way we are seeing Fernando Alonso currently achieving at Ferrari.”

            So you obviously agree with this article, and I agree with their opinion about MS too.

            But I can’t say I find the article well balanced toward NR. It seems to run NR down in order to pump MS up. “NR isn’t actually having that great a season either.” Given that NR has won his first race I think he would say otherwise. But sure I’m guessing NR would also say that a dominant Merc would make the season better for both him and MS.

            The article states MS’s “raw pace has been by far the best it has been since his comeback.” But so has the car’s raw pace improved as evidenced by the help the f-duct has given them at times, especially on Fridays and Saturdays and as evidenced by NR’s win in China. So either NR’s pace has improved too, or it was already acceptable since he has had MS as a teammate. But the article doesn’t highlight that NR’s raw pace has improved too.

            The article admits MS no longer has tailor made tires which it implies was one of the ingredients that helped MS a lot in the past, along with much more testing. Do you still now deny he had designer tires at MS/Ferrari or are you resigned to that since you find this article well balanced?

            The article states, “On a weekend where the car is working really well (such as it did in China) and everything goes smoothly there is no doubt MS can get podiums and win a race or two.” No guff…that can be said of all drivers. Almost all WDCs have had the WCC winning car, and when that wasn’t the case they had an extremely strong second place car in the WCC.

            So ultimately the article seems to bottom line it that both drivers should be looking over their shoulder as they both could/should be replaced, yet it shades the fact that NR has now won his first race and he is likely more stoked to progress than he has ever been as a driver to. His confidence is probably sky high right now, and he is only being limited by the phenomenon that is the tire issue right now for all teams and drivers. I predict that even if the Merc doesn’t improve on it’s 4th place in the WCC by year’s end, NR is going to be hard to beat now by MS in the inter-team battle. Many drivers who win their first race are said to have taken a notch up the ladder in terms of confidence as a now proven race winner, and yet this article does not give NR that kind of positivity.

            NR has won a race and has a much better attitude about the tires…that being that the race within the race is to see which team will be first to get a consistant handle on the tires, whereas MS is moaning about the tires and running into the back of innocent bystanders.

            The pressure is on MS to not be outpointed a third year in a row by NR, while NR is on as high a high as one can get for not having a car that can consistantly win (not that anyone has proved they have that yet this season). Ultimately, for having MS as a teammate who some still wish to put on a pedestal, NR is doing great then. The way some people go on about MS, he should have been trouncing NR from day one upon his return to F1, or at least after only a handful of races in 2010 when Brawn predicted he woud be 2010 WDC.

          8. Just thought I’d fire off one other fact that the ‘well balanced’ article seems to disregard…NR sat with 26 points after the first 5 races last year…he now sits with 41 after this year’s 5 races. MS of course sits with less than he had but of course in fairness he has had issues beyond his control. The point being, in an effort to pump up MS the article states that NR is not having that great a season so far either. I beg to differ and I’m sure NR would too. He would point us to his win and the fact that he so far has 15 more points than last year at this time. So where’s the balance?

          9. omgx10 ….the article: “However he doesn’t(<—-currently) seem to be able to transcend a car that is off the pace like he could do in his peak(<—-past) i will type one more time since you are really really misinterpreting it "like he could do in his peak" that article mean past yes he can but currently(since his comeback) seem doesn't able to do so just like what i saying since his comeback he wasn't at his peak/prime or able to push sub-par car(since his comeback) like he used to i been saying this since his comeback, last years pls go back to my last year post you will find it and still satnd on it. Pls read it without your tainted glassess or your judgment to Schu that clouded it and more carefully this time gosh 3 times already.

            He just saying what he think about the car like Alonso said people just exaggertaing it and i think because it's Schumacher's also recently even the RedBull boss and Webber kind of unsure about the tyres. And people also predicting NR to be 2010 race winner and champion, it might down to like i said it before because Brawn win the 2009 WDC so can't blame people expecting Brawn/Merc 2010 to be stronger that turn out not true so it down to the car put any top drivers in that 2010 Merc i bet WDC=out of reach.

            "Just thought I’d fire off one other fact that the ‘well balanced’ article seems to disregard…NR sat with 26 points after the first 5 races last year…he now sits with 41 after this year’s 5 races."
            Huh at China the team error costing him on the podium or might be win since his race pace oftenly better than Rosberg like he showed it last year. Aus got gearbox failure while defending against Vettel, Hit by Grosjean-Sepang, China said it one more time team mistake, Bahrain-DRS problem. Last year putting the technical failure bad luck he alrready outscore Rosberg oftenly MS race pace better than NR and personally wht i think about Rosberg is when got a good car he will do well and keeping the pace not a spectacular drive but in sub par car i can't see him can deliver just like Micahel(prime/peak) or Alonso so that my view on him at the moment. "So where’s the balance?" should be asking your ownself.

          10. So again…we all agree…MS can’t transcend the car like FA can. And you have been claiming that since MS’s return. Fair enough. Don’t know why we keep arguing the point.

            You are clouding the truth…Brawn had MS as 2010 WDC. He never said NR would be…he might have said NR would one day win a race and a WDC, but he clearly had MS as 2010 WDC.

            More clouding…in China NR was leaving MS in his dust at the start of the race, so to pretent somehow MS could have won or got a podium is simply putting full speculation on your part into play. NR proved he had better pace, and won the race to seal the deal. You are trying to take something away from NR, just like the article does, because you are blinded toward MS. I point out the facts on NR’s points, and all you can do is say ‘but MS this and MS that.’ Forget about MS for a second…NR still has 15 more points than he had last year at the same time, plus a race win. The first one for Merc since 1955. The article doesn’t point out NR’s extra points than he had last year at this time, and it doesn’t point out the fact that he may now be a different driver now that he has a win under his belt, and that I find unbalanced toward NR in it’s attempt to make excuses for MS’s season so far. I’m not saying MS hasn’t had some bad luck, but I think it is poor of the author and of you to try to pump up MS by claiming what NR is doing so far is no big deal.

            Maybe you and the author should be making comments about the team’s shabby mechanical performance on MS’s behalf rather than just trying to underplay NR’s performance to make it look like MS could have done the same or better. That’s just speculation because for all we know if he had had more laps under him in more races he might have had more tire issues that would have seen him fall back or he might have run into other cars besides Senna’s. That’s just as much fair speculation on my part as you and this article saying woulda coulda shoulda…yes MS has shown just as good pace as NR at times, and for all we know that might have cost him his tires more often than not. After all, he’s the one bemoaning the tires so there sounds like to be a good chance he would have struggled as much if not more than NR.

          11. Since when i didn’t agree with that, check my last posts i always stated that since his comeback he wasn’t like he used to or pirme or peak….But 4th times i said to you like many i agree and believe he was capable(prime) of doing(pulling the dog of a car beyond the limit). I don’t know why you keep twisting my view… it carefully….

            I think you are clouding the truth, what i meant is NR fan and some of the F1 community and Brwan probably didn’t think the car would be that lack of pace.

            Not really Michael, in China he seem to be able to widening the gap to Button back again and who knows he might going to catch Rosberg at the end of the race like i said he prove he got the pace like he showed last year and this year first races. I think it is a hypocritical view from you saying the article and me not balance toward Nico whereas you are the one that seem to serve that point and i think it’s well balance article contrast to your which most often trying to twisting the fact out and blinded by one sided view like how to degrading some of Schumacher brilliant drive last years or career which i think is no sense and i think it is poor judgment from you because somebody doesn’t agree with you meaning they are wrong which personally i think most often it’s your case alone since so many trusted view kind of against from your post.

            About the tyre i said Michael just saying what he feel soem are unsure about the tyre as well just like Alonso said people are exaggerating it. Michael mechanical failure is fact unless you watch differnt F1, F10?? it’s just a speculation from you about Nico he still got questioned not by me and the article but some others like i said above when got good car he will do well but he doesn’t seem able to transcend the car when it’s sub-par showing in his career. It’s our opinion and you got yours but that doesn’t meant you are excatly 100% right

          12. So when I say we all agree, why do you continue to accuse me of twisting your words?

            Anyway…we are getting nowhere…you have your opinion about MS and about the F1times article that you cite, and I have mine. I’ll stick to my guns that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of. I don’t find the article balanced in terms of how they treat NR. But you wish to defend MS so you find the article balanced. So be it. You know where I stand. You won’t convince me otherwise, nor will I convince you. I don’t think it is fair and balanced to say MS is doing ok because NR has done nothing special. I have to go now, and I’m not sure if I’ll be back to this site until after the weekend, so don’t take my silence as me somehow getting your point and agreeing with you. It won’t happen.

            Bottom line for me…I do not respect MS, and his insults and accusations aimed at Senna after he (MS) committed a blatant error and took himself and Senna out of the race, causing the stewards to penalize him which will hurt also him at Monaco, just supports one of the reasons why I have never respected the man. And the article you cite, that you call balanced, makes no mention of his insults and accusations that I find very unprofessional given that it was obviously his fault. The article basically implies, yeah so what…it’s not his first racing incident. The fact is he has run into the back of several cars since his return to F1. He is nothing anywhere near a 7 time WDC level driver when he doesn’t have the record breaking resources and the contracted subservient teammate in his pocket.

          13. It’s because i think you are : “Seems like you and I agree that without the best car MS is unable to do much, unlike FA who is managing to do better things with a sub-par car.” I agree on current Schumacher(comeback) you put “seem” the truth i already saying that since his comeback.

            For your info not just that article and me but couple of other articles, ex drivers etc. I don’t know why since ages, reapeated time and times again you keep accusing me trying to convince you, change your mind blah blah about your view which i didn’t and i will stated for the last time hope you got it this time and pls read it carefully!! I was and is arguing about your point of views or stated what mine according to me some of your no sense post about Schumacher and never push you to agreeing with me(don’t know why you keep twisting it arund???). And i found it quite well balance view about that article.

            I stated again, again, again and again since ast years, i couldn’t care less you like, respected, or whatever toward Schumacher just like to reply, arguing, debate whatever you wan to call—Bring it and where i think some of you post about Schumacher just no sense, this one of those now:”He is nothing anywhere near a 7 time WDC level driver when he doesn’t have the record breaking resources and the contracted subservient teammate in his pocket.” …seems to me that’s the prove of your one sided view towar Schumacher and against trusted profesional views. My point of view about Senna crash was racing incident, Vettel agree with that as well, that’s my opinion.

            “And the article you cite, that you call balanced, makes no mention of his insults and accusations that I find very unprofessional given that it was obviously his fault”
            And your don’t and yours 100% right about Schumacher, 99% stated about Schumacher flaw or mistake etc and what he done right? No 0 ust 0% because “that’s i think so” just like no other F1 drivers in F1 never make mistake if you like google it rather than just google your own google. Write an article post in in trusted sources such as F1 racing, Autosport, etc and see what people cope with that.

          14. “I do not respect MS”
            I don’t think he need or care about that since he already got tons of tons of fans that respect and support him.

          15. @CX9…check out the latest roundup by Keith about Petrov’s opinion of Massa’s future at Ferrari, and within the roundup is a couple of videos of what MS did to Hamilton in free practice in Spain. Then tell me again why MS doesn’t deserve post-Spain criticism. All of the commentators on these videos can’t believe he only got a reprimand. They think he did a very childish and dangerous thing and can’t believe it didn’t cost him a much more severe penalty. MS has lost it. He’s under pressure and it’s costing him performance on the track.

            Btw…I like how you bottom line your argument with a very mature ‘na na na na na, yeah well he doesn’t care’ type of response. No wonder you are an MS apologist.

          16. “They think he did a very childish and dangerous thing and can’t believe it didn’t cost him a much more severe penalty.”
            I think that’s an exaggerating again from you mmm let me think oh you are Robbie off course you shot 100x when about Schumacher and think there are no F1 drivers that giving reprimand only Schumacher lol. The Stewards think: “The German could have recieved a fine or a grid penalty ahead of qualifying but the FIA stewards agreed that the occurrence was only a minor one. ” Minor one and looking at the video Michael didn’t plan to run into Hamilton he overshot the corner back into the track giving Hamilton a hand gesture out of frustration because he think Hamilton held him up.

            Anyway…keep coming with your “mature” argument and blah blah blah your own version about F1-Schumacher,exaggerating it “i got 99 problem with Schumacher” so lets type a couple of one sided judgment toward Michael LOL

  3. Hard one to call in my opinion. Surprised to see stewards issue a penalty, would’ve called it as a racing incident personally

    1. Same here. I don’t think Senna was very concise in his movements, which clearly confused Schumacher, but Schu did still hit him.

      1. Yep, Schuey clearly was confused about Senna’s several tiny movements. I’d call it a race incident, too, but we all know, that the stewards’ decisions are always a bit “different” when the drivers involved are called “Schumacher” or “Hamilton”…

        1. +1
          damn right!

        2. So FIA is biased now? I’d suggest Hamilton and Schumacher to post a UNICEF logo on their suits…

          1. I wouldn’t go as far as to call the FIA actually biased, but their ruling definitely is inconsistent at the least.

            I don’t think a UNICEF logo would change anything, though. ;)

      2. Mark (@marlarkey)
        14th May 2012, 10:22

        Huh ? Why is it up to Senna to wave Schumacher past ? Do you think the cars should be fitted with indicators “please overtake me on this side” ?

        Senna’s driving was compliant with the rules… he moved at most a tyre width right/left…. his second move to the left was returning to the racing line (which is allowed) and at all times there was much more than a car width on both the left and the right.

        Schumacher just misjudged it and drove through Senna’s space on the racing line rather than trying to drive around the outside or dive up the inside – it was Schumacher’s misjudgement that meant he didn’t do either and ploughed into Senna. Its not Senna’s fault that Schumacher assumed he was going to jump out of his way and let him past.

    2. Eh? Senna doesn’t have to be “concise” with his movements, so long as they conform to the rules!

      Whilst, Senna may not be the best driver on the grid and is still a bit wet behind the ears, Schumacher took no account of this whatsoever! – Having been successfully fended off for well over a lap by a Lotus on worse tyres, he allowed his frustration to boil over, culminating in a ridiculous misjudgement!

      1. Consicave – I wasn’t suggesting he had to be concise. I was merely stating that the minor movements he made didn’t help matters. Ultimately Schumacher should have been more patient.

        1. Mark (@marlarkey)
          14th May 2012, 10:24

          Ok… so I think you’re explaining why Schumacher might have been confused rather than attaching blame to Senna ? Ultimately Schumacher misjudged it.

        2. Yes, Gaz;I understand that. However, a defending driver is entitled to defend his position with one move off-line. As it was, Senna made a small and rather predictable move, before realising he could return to the racing line, since Schumacher was neither on the inside or outside. At some point, an overtaking driver needs to make his mind up about how he will achieve his objective. However, Schumacher did neither one thing or the other; and his braking must have been a result of hoping Senna would somehow get out of his way!

          Clubman’s level driving from anyone with a National Licence is difficult to excuse; but at this level (a standard supposedly above that required by an International Licence), it is downright disgraceful!

          1. Mark (@marlarkey)
            15th May 2012, 14:50


            I think Schumacher just assumed that Senna was going to move further to the right out of his way so he’d have a free drive through an empty space on the track. Unfortunately Senna didn’t so Schumacher just drove into the space that Senna was still occupying.

    3. Would you still have called it a racing incident if Senna did the same to Schumi? There would be outcry if no penalty was given.

    4. there are two main reason why Schumie was given a penalty.
      1) Johhny Herbet
      2) Damin Hill.

      It was a racing incident, but they used it as revenge for Schumie making then look silly …

  4. Well deserved. I expected Schumacher to show a bit more humility in his post race interviews.

    1. Eleanore (@leucocrystal)
      13th May 2012, 21:33

      It was nice to see that one of them did, at least. Unsurprisingly, it wasn’t Schumacher.

  5. Really happy about this call, he seemed to me to drive right into the back of Senna and the fact that he move a tiny bit in the breaking area would have made no diffrence as Schumy didn’t seem to have any idea where the corner was.

    1. That’s just not true. You are watching the incident in slow motion. Each of those tiny movements you refer to, to a driver travelling at speed, looks like the beginning of a larger movement. In order to be able to react in time to a move left or right, the following driver has to react at the start of the move. So Schumacher begins reacting to each tiny movement as if it is a much larger one, and then has to re-react to cancel the move. In the end he runs out of time to figure out where Senna is going to be in the corner.

      The rules forbid moving more than once off the line then back onto it, they don’t indicate how big the move has to be to qualify as such. Clearly there is a limit somewhere as to what is too small a move to worry about, however at that proximity and speed small moves are just as dangerous as big ones.

      1. Mark (@marlarkey)
        14th May 2012, 10:42

        Sort of understand the ‘reaction’ argument. But lets analyse this point.

        1. Senna moves fractionally right… Schumacher reacts to make a passing move on the left. Ok fair enough but the car behind can’t assume that the car in front is going to continue moving right so Schumacher should have gone wider on the left to cater for both eventualities ie for if Senna was only making a small move right or a full move right.

        2. So lets now say Schumacher is commited to overtaking on the left…. then Senna makes a small movement back to the left. Well at this point Schumacher could have either got out of it completely or moved out further to the left – it is Senna’s responsibility to leave room for Schumacher on the left, which he did. Maybe Schumacher expected Senna to run him off the road like hence his reactive switch to the right but instead Senna complied with the rules and left Schumacher room on the left which Schumacher could have used but didn’t.

        3. Crucially it was Schumacher attempt to switch to the right that caused the accident. Why did he do that ? There was room on the left and the natural reaction would be for the overtaking car to move left too and use the space on the left that Senna had left for him. It was Schumacher’s misjudgement at that point that caused the incident.

        Finally… the rules DO now permit a car to move back to the line at a corner (a second move) but they require the driver in front to leave at least a cars width. A rule introduced because of Schumacher’s (and others) driving last year and which Senna complied with.

        1. I don’t think there was enough time left to react after Senna moved to the left for Schumacher to react and go right.

          MS was going left, then BS goes left and blocks him, MS starts to come back to the right, but then stops when BS makes the miniscule move back to the right, as MS thinks he’s turning in to the corner, and by this time it is too late to do anything but run in to the back of him.

          I wouldn’t penalise Senna either mind. I think it is a racing incident.

          1. Mark (@marlarkey)
            14th May 2012, 22:20

            Senna didn’t move out of the way and then move back into the way… he moved only about a tyre width one way then the other other… basically his car was ahead of Schumacher the entire time.

            MS was going left, then BS goes left and blocks him, MS starts to come back to the right,

            Well that’s the point… if Schumacher wanted to make the move stick then he needed to go into a space rather than into the space occupied by Senna on the assumption that Senna wouldn’t be there…. when Senna moved back left slightly then Schumacher (already moving left) should have continued to move left to try the overtake on the outside in the space that Senna left for him.

            It was Schumacher’s poor judgement that caused this accident.

          2. @marlarkey, watch the replay one more time. After Senna moves left, there isn’t enough space on the left for Schumacher to fit his car in there. Even if he could squeeze through it would entail him still having to steer so far left that his car would be left pointing left by the time the right hand corner comes up.

          3. Mark (@marlarkey)
            15th May 2012, 14:48

            @dvc, I’ve watched the replay plenty of times… enough to see that there’s quite clearly plenty of room on the left.

            As for “pointing left”, that’s not how the cars move, they “jink” left and right in reaction to tiny driver inputs. In general the drivers are all very adept at reacting to each other’s tiny movements (check how they dice with each other in the first lap or two). Unfortunately Schumacher just misjudged this one and should have had the good grace to say so.

            Think about it, if Schumacher was capable of making the large steering input required to switch from a move on the left to a dive down the right then he was certainly capable of making the much smaller reaction required to change a small move to the left into a larger move to the left to avoid Senna.

            Anyway, the point is that he didn’t actually move left to overtake Senna…. he only moved fractionally left and just assumed that Senna was going to move completely out of his way so he could drive through an empty space on the track (even though there was no obligation or expectation on Senna to do so). The outcome was that he just ploughed into Senna who was still occupying the space that Schumacher had assumed would be empty.

            Interesting too to think about what might have happened if Schumacher had moved left into the space on the outside of Senna instead of trying to dive to the right:
            1. Schumacher might have been able to hold it and drive past Senna on the outside (a great overtaking move)
            2. Schumacher might have got on Senna’s outside but locked up, run wide, ended up staying on the track but unable to make the overtake stick (a great defensive move by Senna)
            3. Schumacher might have run out of road during braking and gone off (a good attempt that went wrong)

  6. Fair call. When I saw it happen I thought Schumacher had a brain freeze there and just sort of rammed into Senna. Did not see any sign of Senna braking earlier, just that Schumacher looked like he wanted to commit to the pass and then decided otherwise and that was enough.

    1. Brain freeze is a very good description. I teach motor racing and I was considering saying precisely this in another post a moment ago. He committed himself from way back, apparently without planning his move properly or considering any contingency for the unexpected. As it was, he didn’t move (to the right) when he had the opportunity, which would have allowed for any early braking from his defending victim.

      1. Schumacher was obviously lining up a pass on the outside, then Senna moved into his path and braked. If I was in Schumi’s shoes I’d be pretty ****** too. Yes it was a brain freeze on his part (he could have braked at the same time), but Senna didn’t exactly make things easy.

        1. Senna simply moved back on to the racing line, and did not move much at all. If he had not moved he would have still been in the line of fire for schumacher. Ironically the rule that allows you to move back to the racing line was put in after schumacher argued for it! Schumacher made a big mistake and has rightfully been punished. Although much more than a 5 place penalty would have been harsh as these things do happen when racing.

          1. Mark (@marlarkey)
            14th May 2012, 10:44

            And at all times Senna left at least a cars width on both sides as required by the rules.

          2. Yes, Lee; a very good point about Schumacher arguing for it. Then again, one has to say such hypocrisy is par for the course with this guy…

    2. Did not see any sign of Senna braking earlier

      You don’t need too, even Senna himself admits he braked earlier.
      100% MSC’s fault though despite Sennas slight weave (but not bad).

  7. I was very surprised Schumacher continued to blame Senna even after seeing the footage. To me it just looked very clumsy from Schumacher and not in any was Bruno’s fault. I think a 5-place grid penalty is reasonable, though of course Monaco is not the place where you want to be moved back.

    After such a promising start to the year, Schumacher’s final year of his comeback (because I don’t think this will be prolonged any longer) is turning into a bit of a nightmare. He is the only driver from the established (i.e., non-new) teams behind Felipe Massa in the standings. Nuff said.

    1. To be honest, I think Schumacher drove like a rookie in 2010 and 2011. He was either running into the back of cars and breaking his wings, trying impossible overtakes, or driving ex teammates into walls.

      I thought 2012 was the year he would have re-matured and put these errors behind him, but it looks like he isn’t getting much better. He doesn’t look like a race winning driver anymore, and I’m sure that frustration is displayed in incidents like these.

      Karma from Schumacher’s previous f1 career is coming back to bite him in the rear…

      1. You’re right, now that I remember, a very similar thing happened with Pérez in Singapore last year, but that time he took responsibility who knows why now he didn’t.

      2. @Todfod “Karma from Schumacher’s previous f1 career is coming back to bite him in the rear…” So then other any f1 drivers that made mistake…It was racing incident or mistake everyone did it.

        If according to your way then he beat the karma with greatness 7 WDC and of the greatest F1 driver recognize by many… that’s a whole of career.

        1. uuh… What?
          Congratulations on putting a lot of words together and somehow managing to make no sense at all.

          I assume you wanted to defend Schumacher in some way, but your point was pretty much lost somewhere on the way I’m afraid.

          1. uuh…what? back at you. 7WDC: Yes, One of The Greatest? Yes voted 2nd best of all time behind Senna in most of F1 polling. So which one of the sense you think no sense to your own no sense??

            I assume you wanted to offend Schumacher in some way and you lost in your own path.

  8. I’m going to get straight to the point. Somehow people forget that Michael Schumacher is something between a god and a machine. He doesn’t make judgments of error. But seriously now, the moment he got caught behind Senna, I feared for the worse, because Senna has a tenacity for running into Michael. And my fears were not unfounded. Schumacher himself admitted that he looked at the replays before he spoke to the press, and “his initial feelings” were confirmed of Senna moving around in the braking zone. As at Hungary 2006 (where he also received a grid penalty), he again said that the video footage will speak louder than he can with words. Which is true. When Eddie Jordan came out and said he expected Schumacher to get penalized for Monaco, I felt like throwing him with something. Still bitter after two decades. You get two camps when it comes to Michael Schumacher – the loyal and the jealous.

    1. DK (@seijakessen)
      13th May 2012, 18:06

      Please, this wasn’t even close. Schumacher is a notoriously dirty driver who has NEVER accepted responsibility for anything on track for the last 20 years. He perfected the “pass me/don’t give way to me and you crash” mentality.

      1. He perfected the “pass me/don’t give way to me and you crash” mentality.

        You’re setting yourself up for a fall here mate. Come on. Your display pic is Ayrton Senna!

      2. @seijakessen That’s rich coming from someone who appears to be a Senna fan. If you need an example, remember Japan 1990 where Senna intentionally crashed into Alain Prost.

        1. I think you will find that Senna never drove in to prost, he simply did not give way (not saying the crash was not sennas fault though as he could have clearly yielded to prost) However Senna had warned the FIA that this would happen as he was not happy at Pole being moved to the wrong side. He was simly making a statement that if he was on pole then he would be making sure he would take the best line through the corner and would not yield it to anyone. It was not what he wanted, he wanted the FIA to put the pole back to the correct line so that the situation would not have arisen.

          That is very different from schumachers incidents.

          1. It is your opinions as well i can said Schumacher drove Villanueve . So according to your view Senna protesting to FIA by doing dangerous crashed on Prost is acceptable?? Nonetheless Senna-Prost was a dangerous move if he wanted the FIA to put the pole back than he could do it with other way not high risk on Prost and himself with dangerous crashed like that.

          2. correction: It is your opinions as well i can said Schumacher never drove in to Jacques Villeneuve

      3. Not true. He apologised to Barrichello. So, he’s accepted responsibility once in 20 years.

    2. Schumi is not a god. He is a human being and makes mistakes like the rest of us. He is also 42 years old and it shows.

    3. AJ (@ascar2000us)
      14th May 2012, 6:38

      MS is just a frustrated old man. He called Senna an idiot over the radio.. unless he has video option on his steering wheel which he so elegantly threw away.
      Only a MS fanboy would be blind to the obvious. I personally thought MS had discovered form this year.
      Even if he did its fading away as quickly.

  9. This is absolutely the right decision. Since Schumacher decided to make reference to previous incidents which have no bearing on this particular misjudgement (it is a travesty to call it “an accident”), I will make a general reference to his driving over the years, which has bordered reckless at times. He was completely at fault for this incident with Senna, who was on older tyres than himself; and he should consider himself lucky not to be starting from the back of the grid at Monaco.

    My opinion is that he should have had his licence revoked after playing dare-devil with Barrichello and a wall.

    Stewards were right to penalise him on this occasion. Actually, perhaps they were rather generous…

    1. playing dare-devil with Barrichello and a wall

      please, that was one of F1’s greatest moments :P when it comes to Schumacher and Hamilton (the most combative drivers), the stewards always had “funny” decisions :) of course Alonso calls out for more gentlemen racing when he is unable to overtake :))

      1. lol
        I don’t think that’s why Alonso asked for respect but your point is super funny. F1 can be a massive comedy especially the battles of opinion.

      2. The barichello incident was certainly not one of F1s greatest moments! It was nearly a deadly one! It was dangerous and wreckless!

        1. no more dangerous than the times the greats Senna and Prost took each other out :)

          1. +1

            One should not forget that Schumacher started to move to the wall _before_ Barrichello was beside him. But Barrichello insisted to take that line completely disregarding where Schumacher was driving to. For sure, that doesn’t grant Schumacher the right to push Barrichello to the wall, but after all that’s racing and not a birthday party at the local kindergarden. ;)

          2. Well said

        2. To be fair, he did leave a car’s width in the Rubens incident… just.

          1. Make sense

  10. Should have gone to Specsavers. Old people should give themselves more room, because their reactions are slower ;¬)

    1. Now we know who did it and why Senna’s car was toasted…

  11. That is quite unfair penalty. Exactly the reason why moving around in the braking area is quite looked like senna was moving quite a bit at braking. Senna has his share of mistake.
    i thought senna d get a penalty.

  12. I don’t think Senna did nothing wrong – he does clearly move in the braking zone. Schumacher was clearly wrong footed by that and hit the back of Senna. My personal opinion is that Senna was at fault.

    Regardless of this though, I don’t see the need for a penalty here. This was a fine example of two drivers unsure of the cars beneath them and was a pure racing accident. I don’t understand why there was a need to punish anyone – especially when this punishment will affect Schumacher at the circuit which is most difficult to overtake at, Monaco. Disappointing really.

    1. Senna (or anyone else) is allowed to “move in the braking zone”! In accordance with the rules, he made one defensive move (very slight: not even a car’s width). Strangely, Schumacher made no change of direction at all, leaving only one option: to brake. But he worked this out far too slowly and from a hugely misjudged closing speed.

      Categorically, 100%, absolutely no doubt: Schumacher’s fault.

      1. Actually he moved twice, but by a small amount, first to the inside and then back toward the racing line, still Schumachers fault though, correct decision.

        1. Exactly and that is allowed. You are allowed one move to defend position and then one move to move back to the racing line.

        2. I said “one defensive move”. His second move was returning to the racing line, which he is fully entitled to do.

    2. Here’s a video of it

      After watching it countless times I think Schumacher has been harshly treated. At 12 seconds in notice Bruno getting closer to the white line then he changes direction when Schumacher has committed to the outside line.

      I am glad though Bruno never got any penalty because he is under serious pressure to keep his seat with Bothas waiting in the wings.

      1. AJ (@ascar2000us)
        14th May 2012, 6:46

        Well to be honest. The rule book says you are allowed to move back to the racing line while breaking to make the next corner provided you leave enough room.
        Senna left MS plenty of room to take the outside line as that is what Schumi was aiming for.
        MS was plain dumb to attempt a shift to the inside on braking.

        1. Quite correct, AJ.

      2. He clearly wasn’t committed to the outside. For one thing there was still loads of room up the inside, which he would have found out if he was committed to it.

    3. Schumacher ended Senna’s race. Penalty deserved.
      If you are driving on the road and you hit someone up the rear, it’s your fault, regardless, same on the track.

  13. what are the chances we’ll see a Merc’ appeal for this one… would say it was equal bkame to both drivers IMO, with senna moving unnecessarily in the braking area and MSC being hesitant. black and white racing incident, no different to webber-kovalainen valencia 2010, and no one got a penalty there… maybe its just derek warwick being bitter again lol

      1. I agree with you.

  14. Part of the penalty should be to give Schumacher the choice either to publicly apologise to Bruno for calling him an idiot and then only lose 5 places on the grid. Or not to apologise and lose 10 places.

    1. @the-last-pope Nah, that would just patronise and antagonise the drivers. They should be allowed to have differing opinions, right or wrong, and be punished accordingly.

      1. I agree. It is not up to the FIA to police drivers manners. If Schumacher feels he needs and want to apologise then he will do it, if he does not then fine. Drivers say silly things at times as they are pumped up and not necessarily thinking straight, however he looks bad to the other drivers if he says things like that and does not apologise but then that is his choice.

  15. At the time I thought it was clearly Schumi’s fault. Re-watching it on Youtube, I think it’s more Senna’s fault. He moves gradually to the right down the straight, and then sharply left in the braking zone. It wasn’t a full move to the edge of the track, but it certainly wasn’t “tiny” (also bear in mind how difficult it is for the following driver to guess how big such a move is going to be once it’s started, especially given a large speed differential between the cars) and it was a second change of line. To make it worse, instead of then continuing that change of direction to its safe conclusion and taking a wide line through the next corner Senna immediately cuts back across into Schumi’s path, Schumi having dived to the inside evasively.

    I do think that Schumi is clumsy in wheel-to-wheel racing nowadays, and the incident is partly due to this – other drivers would probably have managed to back out of the move in time. Also, it’s hard to have much sympathy since he has also pulled many unfair defensive moves in the recent past. However, I don’t see why he is being penalised when Senna broke the rules of racing both by changing his line twice, and moreover by changing his line in the braking zone. Anyhow since there probably wasn’t any malice involved on either side and there’s at least some room for doubt as to whose fault it was, given that both drivers DNF’d due to this incident is there really a need for an additional penalty?

    1. Its allowed to change line twice but you have to leave room when moving back to line. 100 % Schumi’s fault. If this kind of reaction speeds continues, his supr licence should be reconsidered.


        I think the complete footage of the run down the pit straight gives a much better impression of what happened than does the brief snippet shown in most of the replays. Senna gradually moves across to the middle of the track all the way down, and then jumps right back across alarmingly in the braking zone (bearing in mind how early he braked, too), which is unsafe and difficult for the chasing driver to deal with. This would only have been OK if he continued to stick himself right out of harm’s way at the left-hand edge of the track, giving the much faster car a safe route for evasive action up the inside.

        That to me looks unfair. I agree with others that Schumi has often defended unfairly like this, and I think that most other drivers would have been a bit more circumspect in order to give themselves the opportunity to back out of the move, or merely thought faster in those circumstances. That still doesn’t make the stewards’ ruling on this incident reasonable.

        1. He moved back to the racing line which is allowed and expected. In fact Schumacher himself got this rule instated!

          1. The problem is that any kind of sharp move in the braking zone, whether you want to call it a move back to the racing line or not, is unfair, and is particularly stupid when the car chasing you is much faster and you are braking unusually early. If Bruno wanted to take that line through the corner, he should’ve returned to it smoothly rather than showing Schumacher the outside and then suddenly swerving in front of him onto that line just before slamming on the brakes.

            Again I think that Schumi was recklessly impatient here and the collision was certainly avoidable on his part, but given that Senna’s brake-testing of him was also foolhardy (especially since he wasn’t even likely to be racing Schumacher for position) and he broke the rules of defending by moving sharply in the braking zone, I don’t see why Schumacher gets a penalty on top of his DNF. The correct decision would have been to let this one pass.

        2. Very fair assessment, Martin. And a voice of reason too, given what a few others have said here. I initially thought it was all Senna, but looking at the replay, it’s indeed a 50-50. The stewards should’ve let this pass – the DNF was punishment enough.

    2. @ Martyn

      I first thought it was Schumacher’s fault but looking at the video replays I also changed my mind. Problem is a lot of people love for a chance to say something bad about Schumacher so won’t even bother taking the time to look at the video again.

      1. At the end of the day Senna did make moves that made it difficult for MSC to judge what was going to happen next. But these were inside the rules and regulations and the onus is on the driver coming from behind to get passed safely (assuming the front driver does not break the rules). Senna did not break the rules, and therefore MSC is at fault.
        Yes, in my view Senna was at the very least partly responsible, but according to the book there is no bias here. MSC was wrong, and took out Senna.
        The fact that MSC has done so many things in the past to undermine his own words here are just fantastic for us MSC haters, but at the end of the day you cannot really argue with the regs. They are clear as far as I see them.

    3. After watching they youtube footage, Schumacher deserved the penalty but I also though Senna was slightly at fault. Schumacher swerved to the right and basically ran into the back of Senna. Obviously he thought Senna would move completely to the left of the track but he reacted too quickly. I don’t see why Schumacher didn’t stick to the the outside line. On the other hand, Senna said he knew his tyres were shot and couldn’t do anything about it and was trying to get out of the way. Michael was using DRS at the time and so Senna was simply making it harder for him to overtake by changing lines. At the rate Michael was gaining on him, it wasn’t a smart idea to change lines.

  16. Correct decision. While not particularly serious (although cars have gone flying in similar positions before) nor deliberate, it was careless from Schumacher who didn’t allow for the fact that Senna was driving a slower car. Senna could have stayed a little straighter, but it’s not like he cut across Schumacher. 90% Schumacher’s fault — I think that’s enough for a penalty.

    1. I also meant to say that if Senna had continued in a stright line, he would probably still have been hit. Says a bit…

  17. Obviously, for sure, Shumi made a bit of mistake, I just cant see what it achieve’s to penalize him.

  18. Senna DID brake a lot earlier than he should have…and moved to the left in the braking zone as well. Granted,MSC made a mistake too,his reactions werent perfect,but this was clearly a racing incident. What surprises me are the comments here,i know MSC isnt popular,but all the same,some of the reactions here are simply insane. That Senna braked earlier was clearly obvious,yet there are some people who are calling the penalty “obvious”!!!! Its a strange world we live in!!!

    1. Right. Because a car with very old tires takes the same amount of space to safely slow down as a car with new tires. You’re blaming Senna’s tires on the point in which he chooses to brake. Sound stupid? It is.

    2. This reminded me of Shummi vs Hakkinen in F3(I think).

      Shummi blocking faster Hakkinen all the way and then Schumacher lifted the pedal on straight so Hakkinen who was following him very close would hit him and retire. He did same thing to Frentzen in earlier Formulas too :)

      1. Aditya (@)
        14th May 2012, 8:55

        That was Macau.
        And the incident ALSO reminds me of the Webber-Kovalainen incident in Valencia 2010. No penalty was issued.

  19. It looked to me like Senna moved to the right while Schumacher was closing in pretty quickly and had decided to go left and try to pass around the outside. Then Senna jinked slightly to the left making Schumacher think he was going to move over that way so he tried to switch back to pass on the inside but by then he was right on top of him. Senna may have only moved a little bit back to the left but it’s still moving about in the braking zone. That being said it’s the responsibility of the car behind to not run into the car they’re trying to pass so I understand the penalty but I think Senna contributed to the accident.

  20. Hmm so Schumacher crashes into the back of someone, taking out two peoples races and endangering both of them and drops 5 places. Hamilton stops on track after a session has finished, endangering no-one and not spoiling any other positions, and drops 23 places.

    1. Apple vs Orange – Begin

      1. They’re both fruits!

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.