If you feel that you can be the least bit fair, I'll take a detailed> description. All I know at this point is that they hit during the

If you feel that you can be the least bit fair, I'll take a detailed > description. All I know at this point is that they hit during the later > part of the race.

Shuey came out of the pits just ever so slightly later than Ferrari>would have liked and Heidfeld was really bearing down on him>immediately. Shuey was vulnerable with his heavy fuel load. The contact>happened within the first turn or so. The incident LOOKED like this:>Heidfeld got his nose up next to Shuey on the inside on a sharp turn>attempting an overtake. Shuey then slammed the door, forcing Heidfeld>completely­ off the track all wheels bouncing in the dirt. It looked>

like Heidfeld decided he was not going to let Shuey ruin his race>without consequence and snapped back on the track and torpedoed into>Shuey. After the contact, Heidfeld ended up way off in the gravel and>

Schuey didn't "force" Nick off the road, Mick did a twitch towards him>to scare him off then immidiately resumed his normal approach

later>

Shuey came out of the pits just ever so slightly later than Ferrari> would have liked and Heidfeld was really bearing down on him> immediately. Shuey was vulnerable with his heavy fuel load. The contact> happened within the first turn or so. The incident LOOKED like this:> Heidfeld got his nose up next to Shuey on the inside on a sharp turn> attempting an overtake. Shuey then slammed the door, forcing Heidfeld> completely off the track all wheels bouncing in the dirt. It looked> like Heidfeld decided he was not going to let Shuey ruin his race> without consequence and snapped back on the track and torpedoed into> Shuey. After the contact, Heidfeld ended up way off in the gravel and> immediately got out of his car. Shuey was stuck near the track and> asked for a push to get back on and got it due to being in a dangerous> position. So to an untrained observer, it looked like both were driving> overly aggressively, however the marshalls studied it and classified it> as a normal racing incident. Perhaps Shuey was just taking the racing> line and therefore didn't have to give any room. And perhaps Heidfeld> hitting Shuey on the way back was incidental. Shuey later said> something to the effect he agreed with the marshalls.>

Only saw the end of it on the ITV feed, MS was on his out lap IIRC, > NH looked at a pass and locked up the fronts (I think he was aborting > the manouvre) tight against the inside line. He only made it about half > way up alongside the ferrari before appearing to drop back.> MS squeezed him after he'd locked up, in reaction to which NH eased > off the brakes enough to shift himself onto the grass (oops, he may have > been trying to shortcut the corner to avoid a crash, but...) the Ferrari > turned into the corner and the Williams slid into it's right rear. The > Ferrari spun and slid back to be half in the sand, the Williams went > strait through, stopping mid-trap.>

MS shouldn't have squeezed so late, NH should have stayed on the > track and trusted the other man to leave him room. Racing incident.>

Schuey didn't "force" Nick off the road, Mick did a twitch towards him>to scare him off then immidiately resumed his normal approach to the>turn, Nick panicked and threw the car on the grass and from there on>he was a passenger..

Heidfeld was on *grass*.

If on the grass and out of control he had the>mental discipline and ability to steer his car into Schu on purpose,>then he deserves the driver's trophy above and all.. >

Sorry, MS left far less room than a car takes up. He forced NH off the >road.

Yes, because MS didn't leave him room.

Since you clearly DIDN'T see the incident, why would you comment on> it?>

Not true at all. ...Plenty of room on track, silly driver on the> grass.

"Fritz" <soberfritz@yahoo.c­omREMOVE> wrote in message >news:9gMXd.18074$g­J3.5300@clgrps13...>­> Can someone please tell me where I can find a video clip of the crash?>

My .02 - both are at fault, Michael shares more of the blame for closing the >door after Nick committed to the inside. >

How is any of this Nick's fault?

"Marco" <none@none.com> wrote in message >news:ase131hhnr8d4­vq3h2hv8huqf50nsq0ls­v@4ax.com...>> How is any of this Nick's fault?>

If Nick doesn't lock his brakes, he doesn't end up in the grass - instead, >he forces himself next to Michael into the corner and they both (well, >maybe) drive away.>

With Michael's very early apex ­ they were always going to collide. >

Since you clearly DIDN'T see the incident, why would you comment on>it?

Not true at all. ...Plenty of room on track, silly driver on the>grass.>

I saw it, pal, and I saw it objectively, unlike you.>

Go find an optometrist.>

I think Nick's error was in overreacting to Michael closing the door. > It is perfectly clear from the video clip that there was enough room > for Nick to the right of Michael on the approach to the corner. > Michael made the error first in that he closed the door too late and > than backed off a bit to leave Nick room - by that time Nick was (> needlessly) on the grass and out of control.>

It is difficult to say who shares more of the blame since it took both > of them to make an error for the incident to happen.

In <A93Yd.10093$F6.201­3342@news.siol.net> CallMeAl wrote:>> >>>>>>>> snip <<<<<<<<<<<<<<> Michael acted like he didn't know Nick was there, but how could he not > as he just passed him...

Ok, after now watching it a few times, I think it's a pretty clear cut>racing incident. Schumacher blocks Nick, but doesn't shut him out>completely - there is still enough room down the inside line. It all>really goes wrong when Nick locks his right front wheel, causing his>car to drag to the right - and off onto the grass. At that point,>with the cars where they were in relation to each other, contact was>pretty inevitable short of Schumacher turning hard left and stopping.>And I think that's asking a bit much, particularly since he likely>couldn't see anything in his mirror once Nick was on the grass.>Racing Incident - most of the blame on Nick.>

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:21:55 +1100, fajp@ooptushome.com­.au (Da Frank) wrote>some stuff about "Re: Still haven't seen the Schuey Nick crash from the race",>to which I would like to add the following:>

* LOL * ­ >

That would leave very little light in between 'scaring someone off' and>'torpedoing a fellow driver' wouldn't it?>

I'm waiting for Indianapolis or a city race where you will be claiming Schumi>merely scared someone off into a concrete wall. ­>

Schumi should receive a 10 place penalty on the grid for next race, instead of>the 'new engine bonus' he actually received. >

ROFL.>

ROFL. >

The driver in front is entitled to take whatever line they wish (so long as >they don't weave excessively).

ROFL.

No, it leaves quite a bit. >Schumi did a not quite sportsmanlike move, granted, and we are quite>used to seeing that from him when he is pressured. >However, he did the one change of direction approaching the corner. He>moved inwards to protect the line, then moved back. That is allowed by>the rules, despite the fact that it's a nasty thing to do. >Had it been JPM next to him, they would have either touched right>there, or it would've been a very close thing with JPM trying to>outbrake him, either way we wouldn't have seen JPM panicking the way>Nick did. Heidfeld got scared and locked up, throwing the car onto the>grass. Inexperience, lack of balls, call it what you like, but Nick>screwed up. MS is to blame for Nick's screw up,

but Nick has learnt a>valuable lesson and that is to not get intimidated by bullies. >Had Heidfeld stayed where he was, then MS would be fully responsible>for a contact right there, but while MS' action initiated it, Nick's>action caused the actual accident. 50:50 in the least.

Agreed - so how do they drive away?

I'd say more like 60:40 to Nick, but I think had Heidfeld stayed where>he was there wouldn't have been contact as Schumacher would have been>forced to conceed the inside line to the corner.>

Hang on, what? Schumacher is to blame for Nick's mistake?

How does>that work? Nick made his own mistake, he takes the blame for that>part of it. Both drivers are responsible for the accident, but as you>say it's Nick's mistake. >

I'd say more like 60:40 to Nick, but I think had Heidfeld stayed where>he was there wouldn't have been contact as Schumacher would have been>forced to conceed the inside line to the corner.>

- Jones>FORZA!

Watch the video (link posted here in another post). At no point, from

I have difficulty equating "in front" with "alongside".

"Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel@lineone­.net> wrote in message>news:dpqb31­lqq4cp6quiuc0nd2napj­tlg9ps3c@4ax.com>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 19:18:46 GMT, "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote:>>

Watch the video (link posted here in another post). At no point, from start >to finish, did NH ever get his nose infront of MS's.>

I find it hard to believe that someone who is as good as MS is (and> has been around for over 10 years) can't make a decent judgement as> to where Nick was.

If i went "BOO!" and you fell off the cliff you'd be at fault> because you've got startled ?

No, but it was not behind Schumacher's rear, which is what it would> have needed to entitle Michael to ignore him. He was alongside,> although MS had his nose in front.

For what it's worth, "whatever line they wish (so long as they don't> weave excessively)" is rubbish anyway - they are specifically> restricted to one defensive change of line in a corner.

Yes, how dare anyone get alongside MS?

If i went "BOO!" and you fell off the cliff you'd be at fault because>you've got startled ?

No, i'd be the one writing "bloody scary cat">all over my prison cell wall.

That's only because you're not expecting it, when attempting to go down the >inside of another driver, how can you not expect them to try and close the >door and force you to take the outside line? It's a text-book defensive >move. NH "jumped" when MS moved, he locked and slid off the tarmac, it's >

just a mistake. I've seen the same move many times before and drivers have >been able to cope without sliding off the track. It's a shame, because I >reckon NH could have got ahead of MS before MS turned in (he was pretty >close) and then the exit of the corner would have been interesting...>

The wording I posted is the simplest generally accepted "rule" used in all >racing, until you're infront, you keep out the way.

How could you see that footage and conclude Nick was alongside>Schumache­r? What angle were you seeing it from? Have you seen the>high-angle replay?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 21:13:03 GMT, Mark@Jones.eo.nz (Mark Jones) wrote:>>On Tue, 15 Mar 05 11:28:50 GMT, lparker@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker)>>wrote:>>>>­Hang on, what? Schumacher is to blame for Nick's mistake? >>>

"Foil hats! Get yer Foy-uhl Hats!>

...Can't see the rapture, without a FOY-UHL Hat!">

Any move that would intrude into the line of the car next to you would>be considered a line change, especially if it caused the other driver>to alter his path or speed. Obviously, if there are no other cars you>could zigzag right across the straight, you'd look like a right fool,>but i don't think that any steward in his right mind would call that>unfair driving.. They might call you in for a breath test though.. ­ >There is a correct line for every circuit, if you're in front you>would ideally take that correct line, unless you're being challenged>and having to defend. In *that* situation you are only allowed the one>move across (to basically block the path of the other car) and back(to>take your line for the turn), this is what MS did. >Whether you do this by edging over, jumping over, or side hopping>makes no difference. >

Hmng, whatever happened to the front wheel-side pod "rule" ? In open>wheeler racing the accepted definition of being in a rightful position>to own the line. Any move on a driver in that situation would be the>fault of the mover overer.

Squeezing a driver next to you is not "sporting behaviour" and that is>what this whole thing is about. Just because it happens elsewhere does>not matter, especially when your action results in an accident.

How about when you're on the inside ? ­>

If MS had done that 50-100 meters before that point, then fine, but he>was almost at their braking point when he made that slight move to the>right. That's not a line defense, it's a virtual nudge.

Nick would have rightly thought that he may be able to gain a meter or>more before the braking point and force MS wide with him having just>come out of the pits, but yes, i agree it was a rather ambitious move.>Actually another thing occured to me as i write this, it is quite>possible that being the first race with no tyre changes, NH simply>forgot that the only difference is weight of fuel now(which is still>substantial i guess), but the tyres will still be quite up to speed>after a pit stop, unlike before, where a car which just pitted was>virtually gripless and a prey for even a Minardi.. well.. not quite>but you get what i mean. ­

Maybe, but i don't think he would have pulled it off. Had MS thought>like a veteran should, he'd have left just enough room but stay on his>line, effectively ruining Nick's own line for the turn. Then watch as>NH locks up on that dirty side and go wide into the corner with>traction control going nuts trying to get grip. Meanwhile MS being on>the correct line, would have simply snuck by underneath to take the>place right back or at least gain position for the next turn. In>theory anyway. Maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn't have, but>he'd have had plenty of chances to go by Nick later. The Ferrari still>seemed quicker than the Williams, this way it scored no points.

How could you see that footage and conclude Nick was alongside>Schumache­r? What angle were you seeing it from? Have you seen the>high-angle replay?>

- Jones>FORZA!

WTF?... 'They were both ahead'?>

Alas, the sporting rules insist one be declared, as in reality,>"ahead", there is no requirement that a driver yield to one who is>alongside, yet not "ahead".

You fully deserve the eternal purgatory of your ignorant stupidity.>

Because one was not wholly in front of the other;

look up "alongside" in a dictionary.

Preferably not "Ferrari's New Standard Revised"

Alas, the sporting rules insist one be declared, as in reality,>"ahead", there is no requirement that a driver yield to one who is>alongside, yet not "ahead".

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:29:26 GMT, "F2004: 15 of 17*В·**"> <Ron.Dennis@LyingCh­eatingSwine.com> wrote:>

What sporting rules?

"Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel@lineone­.net> wrote in message> news:5a8e31dgiabbjn­pmapkap9ilhm2ospk8g7­@4ax.com>> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:55:14 GMT, "scott" <spam@spam.com> wrote:>>

Until you have your nose infront of the other driver, it is *very* risky to> assume they will leave you room, and even if they don't and you crash it> will be classed as a "racing accident". It happens in *all* forms of motor> racing.>

Well they amount to the same thing, because your wording can never be> "specifically" implemented.>

1) What counts as a change of line? Moving across at least 50% of the track> width? 25%? 5%? 1%? 1mm?> 2) How quickly do they have to turn for it to count as a line change? A> gradual drift to one side of the track over 1/2 mile straight shouldn't> count as a line change.> 3) What about straights? MS and NH weren't even in the corner when they were> jiggling about.> 4) Imagine you have a right bend, followed by a straight and then a left> bend. The normal racing line would be to cut across the straight> diagonally. What if you kept going dead straight? WOuld that be 1 line> change or not? I don't see how given that you're going straight. WOuld the> driver then be permitted to move out at the end of the straight to take the> normal racing line?>

The wording I posted is the simplest generally accepted "rule" used in all> racing, until you're infront, you keep out the way.

Except that FIA has a specific rule that requires a minimum amount of>driving room to be allowed. This was spelled out in the penalty against>Montoya in Malaysia. None of your glittering generalities can counter>this precedent.

On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:28:01 GMT, william lynch <x@y.z> wrote:>

I haven't seen this rule either - or Mark's "yield" rule. Can someone> point me to a regulation?>

The only rules I can think of are the "one change of line" rule and> the stricture against causing an "avoidable accident".

in article 1v0h31df2ljdfdn8c24­tgddv0udp63qm4t@4ax.­com, Ian Dalziel at>iandalziel@lineo­ne.net wrote on 3/16/05 11:08 AM:>

Go find what was quoted in imposing the penalty on Montoya. Even if>they made it up on the spot, it exists now as a precedent.

I think it was the "avoidable accident" rule.YOU go find it if you> think there's something different!

Is there a requirement that a driver not cut off one who is alongside?

I don't know, a lot of the time the driver trying that move gets> themselves slowed up enough to spoil the overtaken driver's better> line through the apex. I suspect Nick would have just run wide off> the apex, forcing Michael to conceed.

And - what could he do about it? Once Nick was on the grass the> contact was always going to happen.

Dictionary.com seems to equate alongside with side-by-side. From the> replay you cannot possibly call Nick side-by-side with Schumachers> car. And furthermore, as Nick's front wheel nears Schumacher's> sidepod (and starts to lock up) Schumacher actually moves a little to> his left - widening the gap between them. Unfortunately, Nick then> slides off onto the grass.

I haven't seen this rule either - or Mark's "yield" rule. Can someone> point me to a regulation?>

The only rules I can think of are the "one change of line" rule and> the stricture against causing an "avoidable accident".

Hey Mark (& more so, Scott too) - you might want to take a look at this >ZOOMED ANIMATED GIF I made:>http://tinyur­l.com/4gmyg - it clearly shows that Nick *had* to take >immediate evasive action in order to avoid a collision. Again, check the >onboard video - it undeniably shows a quick, distinct, and deliberate turn >of the wheel to the right that was *not* 'a line' but 'a move'.>

On a related note, yesterday a family member's car was having alternator >problems and so I followed him on the 20minute trip to the repair shop - in >case he needed a jump-start. We unfortunately had to stop numerous times. >Even though most of the journey was on relatively quiet 4-lane roads (2 >lanes each direction), and even though we set up a break-down triangle 3 >feet away from the curb in the lane 20feet behind the cars, and even though >both hoods (that's 'bonnets' to Brits) were up, and even though he >deliberately parked his car at a slight angle to the curb for obviousness & >visibility, and even though it was a clear, sunny afternoon -- we almost got >hit 3 times, witnessed 3 or 4 'close calls' where drivers changed lanes >without checking their mirrors, and had 1 shithead clip my triangle, sending >it flying!!>

Exactly. The standard move for Nick would have been to "park" his car on >the apex to ensure that MS couldn't take a wide entry and nip back up the >inside. Thus forcing MS to stay to the right of him. Then as they leave >the corner NH drifts out to the outside forcing MS to slow and thus no >chance for re-taking the position.>

Hey Mark (& more so, Scott too) - you might want to take a look at> this ZOOMED ANIMATED GIF I made:> http://tinyurl.com/­4gmyg - it clearly shows that Nick *had* to take> immediate evasive action in order to avoid a collision. Again,> check the onboard video - it undeniably shows a quick, distinct,> and deliberate turn of the wheel to the right that was *not* 'a> line' but 'a move'.

I am amazed at the number of people (here & on other F1> messageboards) that (apparently need glasses/strong glasses) and> say "Michael was just taking a defensive line, Nick freaked out> needlessly. Michael left him room".

Dictionary.com seems to equate alongside with side-by-side. From the>replay you cannot possibly call Nick side-by-side with Schumachers>car.

And furthermore, as Nick's front wheel nears Schumacher's>sidepo­d (and starts to lock up) Schumacher actually moves a little to>his left - widening the gap between them.

Unfortunately, Nick then>slides off onto the grass.>

- Jones>FORZA!

If one is not out front or behind, he is alongside. I'm sorry if proper >English gives you pause.

From 1/3 a car-width to 1/2 is still not sufficient unless you think a F1 >car can somehow morph like a shape-shifter. Perhaps half the width can be >shifted to another dimension?

I think proper english has failed us in this matter, since the>situation requires a more precise definition of position than>'alongside'. If Driver A was only level with Driver B's rear wheels,>we would not expect Driver B to let A have the corner.

1/3 of a car's width? What video are you watching?>

- Jones>FORZA!

Would you expect driver B to move into the space driver A was occupying, or >would be occupying, if not clearly in front?