In the next few weeks, F1 junkies will see the kind of close-run drivers’ championship battle they’ve craved for nearly ten years. It’s highly likely that the remaining Grand Prix races will extend the competition to the very last race on the F1 calendar. Equally important, the end of the ‘06 season will signal the changing of the guard. Whether or not Michael Schumacher clinches the title, his retirement will signal the most dramatic shift in F1 in a generation.
In the last dozen years, Michael Schumacher has completely dominated F1. To say the German competitor is an exceptionally talented driver is like saying Albert Einstein was a halfway decent physicist. Schuey may not have won every title during his reign, but his presence has exerted an enormous influence on the sport since his first race at Spa-Francorchamps. Other drivers have risen from the ranks to take races and titles away from Schumi: Mika Hakkinen, Jacques Villeneuve, and Ayrton Senna, to name a few. But no driver has come close to marginalizing Shumacher’s talent, determination and success.
The ultimate race of the season, at Interlagos, Brazil, will mark the end of the Schumacher era and the beginning of a brave new world for F1. While F1 Supremo Bernie Ecclestone may fret that F1 sponsors may lose interest in the post-Schumacher world, the opposite could also be true: a new champion may increase the advertising and promotional possibilities and revitalize the sport. History is our guide. Just as Schumacher has colored the world of F1 during his tenure, other drivers have done the same. The passing of each, whether into retirement or a more tragic fate, has brought great change to the sport.
During his time at the top of F1, Jim Clark’s skill was held in the same regard as Schumacher’s. Clark’s peers referred to him as “the natural.” Unlike Schumi, whose single-minded dedication to F1 demonstrates the sport's monolithic nature, Clark raced a wide variety of machines (including touring and rally cars) over a wide variety of tracks for a huge number of races. He proved his talent and mettle in all conditions, against all comers. Clark drove the first mid-engined car to win the Indianapolis 500, becoming the only driver ever to win both the American classic and the F1 title in the same year.
Clark died in 1968 at a relatively unimportant F2 race in Hockenheim, Germany. A suspected tire failure catapulted his Lotus into the trees that lined the forest straights. Chris Amon, Clark’s close friend and rival, lamented his demise with a question that personified the concerns that would drive the next stage of F1’s history. “If this can happen to Jimmy, what chance do the rest of us have?”
Clark’s passing left a gaping void in the soul of the sport. Jim Clark was F1’s hero, a man considered by some to be the best racing driver of all time, who made winning look easy. He’d been suddenly snatched away by the sort of accident no driver could avoid. This hole and the underlying issues behind it were quickly filled and addressed by the sport’s next champion.
Jackie Stewart emerged in the late 60’s as Jimmy Clark’s heir apparent. While many will remember Stewart’s superb skill behind the wheel and his introduction of "personal branding," The Flying Scot’s contribution to F1 safety is his most enduring legacy. Stewart pioneered the introduction of several important safety measures, including seatbelts and full-face crash helmets. But his legacy should be painted with a broader brush– he brought F1 out of the barbaric age and into the future. Stewart’s rise was the rise of the new F1.
Stewart vigorously, tirelessly and effectively campaigned to transform the “tragic hero” race driver of the 50’s and early 60’s into a protected professional. He addressed the inherent faults and dangers of the race courses and challenged car makers to build something better than the world’s fastest coffin. He brought F1 into the modern era. His personal and professional conduct redefined the way racing drivers were perceived by the general public; Stewart was the first professional race driver in the modern mold.
History lesson aside, Schumacher’s departure from F1 will leave a similar void. While the circus will lose its most prolific winner, the holder of nearly every F1 record, it will gain an opportunity for one or more of the young guns to step up and infuse the sport with the new blood and fresh ideas. The process is essential to F1’s development and survival. We can only hope that the driver who steps into Schumacher’s shoes brings something to the sport that is uniquely his own, something that pushes F1 into its next phase– someone who represents the new future of F1.
So what has Schumaker done for F1? What will be his legacy?
Well, it was Schumacher–and Senna and Prost before him–who started the F1 era of simply driving into your competitor if it looked like he was going to beat you. (Senna once actually admitted doing it, to Prost, who I believe had previously done it to him.)
Of course, these people all learned their sporting morals from football (soccer), where committing a blatant foul to prevent a goal is essentially permitted.
I think Schumacher legacy is that he will be the last F1 driver to have utterly transformed an F1 team. Remember how laughable Ferrari was in the mid-90s. Sure they could win a race or two, but were completely outclassed overall.
Once he moved to Ferrari, the entire landscape of the team changed due to his influence and those he brought with him. I cannot see this happen again with the changes the FIA have made to make F1 ‘more afforadable’ or ‘more competitive’. Neither do I see any current F1 driver having the talent, temperament, or sheer determination to be able to do what Schumi did at the Scuderia. Look at Alonso, he moved to McLaren because Renault would not commit to F1 in 2007. If it were Schumacher at Renault, do you think they would have hesitated one instant to recommit to the sport?
I am still amazed at the combination of words used in the first paragraph: “F-1 junkies”. One should understand that this sport is not a sport of the lower middle class, but rather something that is in the circle of interest of the upper classes all around the world. Royalty attend the Monaco F-1 race, and important people (such as ministers of sport etc) hand out the trophy at the end of every race. Fewer people drive F-1 cars than became astronauts. Just to give an example of the class of the people participating in this motorsport, the example quoted by you, Jackie Stewart is a person who received knighthood for his racing. And he was not the only one. Understanding F-1 requires an entirely different approach than starting out with a Nascar mentality and adjusting a few knobs.
Oh, come on. Rock-and-roll singers get knighted. It’s less meaningful than making Eagle Scout.
I’ve been to a number of F1 races in Europe. Most of the spectators I’ve seen are not “uppah clahss.”
I love the F1 commentary on this site. I didn’t expect it… I have a very hard time finding F1 fans around here (I got into it because my grandfather in Spain has always watched it, but I live in CA).
I think Schumacher’s greatest legacy is that of leadership in a team. In a Machievellian way, he molded the entire Ferrari organization around him, bringing the team up from the doldrums into a powerhouse whose influence extended to the FIA itself. In the post-Schumacher era, successful drivers will the those who are not just good drivers, but good with contracts, PR, and team politics.
But I won’t miss the days when the rest of the field competed for 2nd place.
Ditto aitala’s comment; but I want to expand on it: Schumi is a “systems” guy. I’d put him up there with someone like Lance Armstrong (cycling) or Ellen MacArthur (sailing) as someone that ruthlessly eliminates failure modes so that he (or she) may be Champion.
Schumacher focused the purpose of an F1 team around winning Drivers Championships for the Team’s First Driver. The Second Driver is irrelevant except for his contribution in supporting the First. The tyre, engine, chassis, body, electronics, support staff, and sponsors are similarly irrelevant except to support the First’s Drivers Championship aspiration.
I think that the degree of how much Schumi focused on sytemic operational excellence is confirmed not just in making himself excellent; but also in the Constructors Championships.
Winning the Constructors Championship is indicative of how well the Team is systemized around having the First Driver win. 39 of the 48 Constructors Championships awarded since 1958 (and 17 of the last 20) were won by the team whose driver also won the Drivers Championship. (The Drivers Champion was in the Constructors Championship second-place finishing Team for the other 3 of the last 20 years.)
So, it is the single-minded purpose of winning Drivers Championships, and thoroughly orienting the Team around a system to deliver those Championships will be Schumacher’s legacy.
I’m not sure I agree that Ayrton Senna “rose from the ranks” to take “some titles” away from Michael. First of all, Senna’s F1 career started in 1984 while Schumi’s started in 1991.
Senna was a 3 time world champion in 1988, 1990, and 1991. Meanwhile, Schumacher’s claimed his first world title in 1994.
Mmmmmm, Ayrton Senna.
Nothing wrong in giving Schumacher a well-deserved sendoff but trivializing the great Ayrton Senna is irresponsible journalism and betrays an ignorance of history.
Ayrton Senna died during the same season in which Schumacher won his first world title – by what looked like purposely driving into Hill. Senna and Schumacher never drove against each other as champions.
Mr Wilkinson, I take exception to this statement of yours:
“Well, it was Schumacher–and Senna and Prost before him–who started the F1 era of simply driving into your competitor if it looked like he was going to beat you.”
Schumacher did far better than “driving into” his competitor. He made it look like the opponent’s fault. Like a wrong place wrong time kind of maneuvre. Schumacher was the king of “Did he even touch him?” “It does not even look like he pushed the other car straight in the sand.” Even though he surely did.
Like you said, everybody is doing it. However, Schumi perfected the art: “You’re in my way, I’ll run over you, push you in the sand, make you taste the tires, nope it was not oversteer, it was me, your car just got scared because I was looking at you”
Nigel Roebuck, one of Autosport’s legendary writers, recently had this to say about a certain driver: “(He) was utterly ruthless with any driver who got in his way (not least those being lapped), and never hesitated to use intimidatory tactics, and worse.”
The driver in question? None other than Giussepe Farina, the first ever F1 world champ. Roebuck goes on to add that “pre-war drivers were killed in two-car accidents involving Farina. In fact, his driving manners were not greatly different from those of some of today’s stars: what was different about him was that he employed them at a time when the sport was extraordinarily dangerous, when the consequence of his actions was potentially lethal.”
Schumacher’s ruthlessness is undeniable, but nothing new.
I am still amazed at the combination of words used in the first paragraph: “F-1 junkiesâ€. One should understand that this sport is not a sport of the lower middle class, but rather something that is in the circle of interest of the upper classes all around the world.
I have take exception to this, as F1 is the second most watched sport in the world after football (soccer). It might be the monied classes who you see at Monaco, or wandering the paddock, but they simply aren’t numerous enough to sustain the level of interest F1 has. Rather it’s the lower and middle class people who follow it week in and week out, buy the less choice seats, get up at 7:30 on a Sunday morning to watch it live, etc.
Mitch, is really difficult to write about the end of the Schumacher’s era without reference to Alonso… I am Spanish, but I am not a supporter of Alonso. When I was a child, seeing a picture of the Ferrari Millemiglia, my love went to this Italian brand. And I admit the German driver is probably one of the best F1 pilots.
But I remember when i was talking in Britain with some Bentley’s engineers, just when Alonso was starting to drive in F1. They told me: “Alonso is a winner, he has all the characteristics of a F1 champion.”
Several points:
Michael’s legacy, as noted a few times in previous comments, is likely to be as the consumate competitor. It really comes down to Schumacher’s personal ethos – whatever it takes to win is right, as winning is the highest goal. I particularly like the comment made by borderinsane about eliminating failure modes – this is exactly what schumacher does. Michael’s time with the scuderia is a great example – he has compartmentalized, divided and conquered each aspect of the team and put it back together as a michael-centric system, one michael knows he can control.
As for Alonso, he certainly has the tools to become a great champion (as if his almost-assured second title won’t settle it). Alonso has been criticized a bit in recent weeks for what seems to be immature behavior in criticizing everyone but himself for his failure in China. Keep in mind, he is a young man, and though he’s been a racer all his life, F1 is tough for everyone. Once Alonso has a few more years under his belt, we’ll get an idea how good he really is. Let’s also consider that he has been gifted the best package in the field for the better part of the last two seasons (all of 2005, and up to the Canadian GP this season). Unfortunately, his teammate’s performance hasn’t exactly been up to par, so it’s difficult to judge how much of the success has been due to Alonso. Alonso’s departure for (un?)greener pastures at McLaren is likely to prove to be a mistake – their general uncompetitveness this year combined with the departure of Adrian Newey (the real architect of Hakkinen’s championships) might make for some long nights in Woking.
It seems likely to me that the rising star is much more likely to be Raikkonen than Alonso. Raikkonen steps into the F1 dream job, the one that nobody turns down, ferrari’s #1 – an extremely motivating place to be. He’s coming into a team with a proven system, michael’s system.
I highly expect that Alonso will not fair well at McLaren next season. Partly due to the difficulties adjusting to a new team and partly due to the manner in which he left Renault.
Think about it for a second – he did the deal behind Renault’s and Briatore’s back – admittedly he was concerned about the future of Renault in F1, but could he not have set up something with Ron Dennis saying that if Renault pulls out he will sign with McLaren, but if they stay, he stays? Considering McLaren’s season it would not have hurt them one bit to wait to know about Alonso. And he could have taken that agreement to Renault and said, “Look, I need to know or I am gone.”
So now McLaren knows that Alonso will bolt if things don’t go his way, so how committed will they be to him? It’ll take a season for him to really inspire McLaren, assuming he can do so at all, which I have doubts about.
Alonso may have bolted from Renault, but it’s not as if things were going badly. Really the biggest impediment to Alonso’s success at McLaren is going to be McLaren. The MP4/20, while extremely quick, certainly the quickest car on the grid in 2005, was extremely unreliable. In 2005, Raikkonen retired from 4 races while leading due to mechanical failure. This year, the MP4/21 is a beautiful car to be sure, and a unique aerodynamic solution. Unfortunately, the car isn’t very quick and its designer has moved on to the Red Bull empire.
The next few years may be a struggle for both McLaren and Alonso. And, given Alonso’s increasingly desperate behavior and public statements, all while leading the WDC for the second straight year, he may just go off the deep end. I question Alonso’s ability to cope with failure, and it doesn’t seem likely that he’ll see much of the other side of the coin at McLaren.
America needs to have someone come onto the scene and represent it. The continued emphasis on NASCAR, difficult as it is and draining as it might be to do, doesn’t win much respect for this country with the worldwide enthusiast community.
Looking back, it is a shame given the fact that the late Ritchie Ginther, a Californian, gave Honda its first F1 victory in Mexico City. (And likely was one reason he retired to Mexico.) Then too, you had Phil Hill and Mario Andretti (born in Italy but a U.S. citizen) who gained F1 titles. Dan Gurney’s Westlake-Eagles won the first F1 title for an American team, since Dusenberg (in 1922) back in 1967.
There is likely more money in NASCAR for drivers – short term. But long term, there is more money and certainly more respect in F1. I have read (in the likes of Automobile magazine) about how the NASCAR guys can best F1 drivers relatively easily. But let’s see one of these people prove it, long enough, to secure a World Championship for America.
Michael Schumacher’s legacy will be consistency and demonstrating the value of showing up and keeping on, keeping on.
As many have noted, Schumacher’s ruthlessness is part and parcel of F1 in general.
The man’s won 7 (!) Wold Championships. S-E-V-E-N. 91 races. His name is atop every record in the book.
Onje day I’ll be telling my grandkids that I saw THE Michael Schumacher win the 2000 USGP.
He is, by any measure, the best there ever was.
All of that American participation in F1/gp happened before the era of Kart racing. There is virtually no Kart racing in the U. S. even today, but it is generally said that if you haven’t won a national Karting championship–Brazil, German, France, whatever–by the time you’re 10, you might as well forget about even trying for the F1 ranks.
If you’ve even driven a serious Kart, you know what it teaches about car control, and that four-year-olds begin to learn that in the countries from which F1 drivers typically come. (I don’t know if there’s serious Karting in Japan, but I doubt it…) American drivers don’t begin learning anything like it until they start driving Saturday-night specials while they’re in high school.
I have never heard it said that “Nascar guys can best F1 drivers relatively easily” and certainly wouldn’t accept Automobile magazine as a voice of authority on this subject. Car and Driver at least has a few legitimate competition drivers, while Mark Gilllies was the only one that came close, at Automobile. (He’s now at C/D.)
I think the only time we ever had any evidence in this regard was when Jeff Gordon and Montoya switched cars at a well-regulated media event. Both demonstrated that they could each drive a strange racecar competently–duh–but I don’t think either broke any lap records.
The Montoya vs. Gordon thing was called Trading Paint, I believe. The two performed very similarly, but we should take into account that Gordon’s youth was spent in karts and open-wheelers.
As for NASCAR guys performing well against F1 guys, I find it highly unlikely. Typically, drivers accustomed to one type of racing or another (in this case oval vs. road course) have some difficulty switching. Th fact that NASCAR teams bring in “road racing drivers” to drive at Watkins Glen should give you an idea how skilled the oval track guys are on a road course. Add in the relatively limited number of NASCAR guys who are legitimately in contention to win either of the road races, and the picture is even more bleak.
While I don’t want to minimize the difficulty of performing well in NASCAR, let’s be honest about the situation. F1 is, in terms of selectiveness, much more difficult to join, much less win in, than NASCAR. Also, despite comments to the contrary, the leading F1 pilots make significantly more money than their NASCAR counterparts – I’d like to see a comparison between the average F1 salary for 2006 and the average NASCAR salary for the same year. There are several very highly-paid NASCAR drivers, but the rank and file are scrambling to make ends meet.
Finally, let’s look at the physical demands on the drivers. F1 pilots are in the cockpit for far shorter periods than NASCAR drivers, but the level of physical exertion is significantly higher. One look at Tony Stewart should give you an idea how strenuous NASCAR is.
Well, NASCAR bashing aside, the demands of each type of racing are unique. I think that most of the drivers on either side would have significant difficulty moving to another type of racing. Really it boils down to your training. Pure oval guys are not going to be good road racers. Likewise, kart and open-wheel guys have big problems moving to heavier, less nimble stock cars. Maybe once Villeneuve and Montoya are in the Cup, we’ll know more.
Now I love to see photos of Jimmy Clark driving a Lotus, but it’s an odd choice illustrating a story about F1 with a photo of an Indy Car.
I noticed that Michael Schumacher’s name is still spelled incorrectly in the article’s title. Is this being done for a reason? I hate being left out of a joke!
Of course, now that I have read the article, I feel like a retard. Sorry, folks. Nothing to see here…