Mick Schumacher, Haas, Monaco, 2022

Vettel tells media to ‘give Mick Schumacher a break’ after latest crash

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sebastian Vettel thinks Mick Schumacher is getting too much criticism from journalists.

In brief

Vettel defends Schumacher after Monaco crash

Following Mick Schumacher’s heavy Monaco Grand Prix crash, Vettel urged members of the media not to give him a hard time.

“It’s so easy to get it wrong so quickly,” said the four-times world champion. “I don’t know exactly what happened to him I haven’t seen it. But the main thing is he’s okay.”

Along with Williams driver Nicholas Latifi, Schumacher is one of two drivers to have started every race this year without scoring a point. Team mate Kevin Magnussen, who retired from Sunday’s race with an MGU-K failure, lies tenth in the standings on 15 points.

Vettel said it’s clear Schumacher can raise his game. “I think there’s no doubt he’s capable of doing a lot more than what he’s showing at the minute,” he said. “But I think you guys need to give him a bit of a break.”

Save at chicane was “pretty scary” – Zhou

Zhou Guanyu described the moment he almost lost control of his Alfa Romeo at the chicane as “pretty scary”. He was trying to overtake Yuki Tsunoda at the time.

“It wasn’t too cool in the cockpit, it was pretty scary in the moment,” he said afterwards. “It will be nice to have a look at the replay.”

“It was tough out there,” said Zhou, who finished the race 16th. “Obviously it was very damp on the inside and there’s not much slipstream you can get. So that was probably the closest lap I’ve been to Yuki so I really had to dive up the inside at the last minute.

“Unfortunately he tried to cover a little bit and at the moment I tried to avoid that I hit the wet patch. I was just about to keep the car on track there.

“The rules [say] say you have to left the past before [turn] 12 and then I had no real exit and Latifi got me. But I don’t think that really matters. At least I tried to bring a position.”

Alpine expected tough weekend in Monaco

Alpine CEO Laurent Rossi said the team’s tough weekend in Monaco came as no surprise. Fernando Alonso, who finished seventh, brought the team’s only points of the day.

“As a team, we were expecting it to be a challenging weekend at a circuit with so many slow-speed corners, which does not tend to suit our car,” said Rossi.

He said the team found useful set-up tweaks for its A522 in Monaco. “We’ve had to dig deep all weekend to make improvements between Friday and Saturday, which not only helped us this weekend, but also bodes well for the future where we can take forward this knowledge in adapting our car to all types of tracks.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

Carlos Sainz Jnr’s clear messages to Ferrari that he didn’t want to switch to intermediates showed why he avoided the strategy his team mate was unhappy with, says @Spafrancorchamps:

I think the different personalities really showed yesterday. Leclerc is a more calm person, which really helps him in many situations, but his introversion makes him less assertive. While Sainz is very assertive and took a stance against the team, Leclerc gave all control to the team. Sainz set out the strategy to the team very early, not asking, but stating that they would be skipping inters.

It is a learning point for Leclerc, and a very difficult one (I know because I struggled with this too). But in situations like these in the future, he should be more assertive towards the team. The other way, his engineer should of course ask him more questions. ‘Carlos is skipping inters to go straight to dry tyres. What do you think?’ is all it takes.

Ferrari messed up. And considering they will likely mess up more, Leclerc should be improving on his part a little bit.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to The Dutch Bear and Duncf1!

On this day in motorsport

Ayrton Senna unexpectedly extended his run of Monaco Grand Prix wins today in 1992
  • 30 years ago today Ayrton Senna won the Monaco Grand Prix after a late puncture dramatically scuppered Nigel Mansell

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

41 comments on “Vettel tells media to ‘give Mick Schumacher a break’ after latest crash”

  1. Mick Schumacher and Daniel Ricciardo are the two drivers that come to mind that are quickly running out of time to show their talents.

    No more throwing cars away. No more being off their teammate’s pace. No more excuses. Or no more F1 for them come 2023.

    1. I would add Gasly, Latifi, Tsunoda and Zhou to your list. I would also say that Magnussen should have more than 15 points by now.

      1. Tsunoda probably, Latifi definitely.

        Too soon for Zhou.

        Gasly is certainly debateable, but I do believe he has shown genuine pace prior to this season. This year may be a combination of a slower car and his attempts to push the car up to where it was last year.

      2. @Miane @cairnsfella
        Tsunoda has decently improved, so including him among drivers possibly at risk is unfair.
        Indeed too soon for Zhou & Gasly is debatable, although he’s generally been slower than Tsunoda.

        I’m positive Mick will be safe & for now also Ricciardo, but Latifi is definitely under threat & so could Ricciardo at this rate despite being under contract until next year’s end.

        1. @jerejj fair call re: Tsunoda. I hadn’t given him enough credit for his performance in relation to Gasly this season.

      3. As for your list, I’d say Latifi and Zhou are safe unless and until someone comes to their respective teams with a bigger check.

        I imagine Tsunoda is safe as long as Honda keeps their toes in.

        I could see Gasly dropping out of Formula 1 if one of Red Bull’s juniors shows promise and all other teams are either out of seats or out of confidence in Pierre’s ability to consistently deliver.

  2. Re: F1 and FIA, it’s exactly what it appears: F1 growing in popularity with a huge array of talent in the field of drivers and outstandingly professional teams, and then a bunch of amateurs running (when not ruining) the races.

    1. It could just as easily be the opposite, @david-br.
      More people are watching because it’s less predictable, in multiple ways – so many people in the past have switched off or dismissed F1 simply for being so monotonous and repetitive.
      Now it’s becoming a bit more organic and fluid, and that interests people.

      Right or wrong, a lot of people are enticed by controversy.

      1. F1 is one of the more predictable motorsports on the planet, that’s why people watch. It’s a coherent narrative. That’s not to say you needs some ‘tension’ within the narrative, and that often comes from pre-season unknowns about who has built a good car. But once the season starts you general have 2 teams out front, sometimes three and within that 2-3 drivers who will fight for wins.

        Don’t forget this ‘growth’ of F1 popularity has come during the most dominant periods of its history with Lewis and Mercedes. Last year the king was ‘dethroned’.

        Again, all about narrative. It’s a balance. But we do see a bias where people think predictability is a bad thing, but it really isn’t. The evidence doesn’t back that up.

        1. F1 is one of the more predictable motorsports on the planet, that’s why people watch

          People watch things for any number of reasons, Alan. My reasons are different to your reasons, and both are different to someone else’s reasons.

          And the peak of F1’s growth in recent times came last year (and into this year) when the championship was a real, genuine fight rather than a foregone conclusion – as was the case for so many years prior.
          Add to that – the pandemic and people all over the world being allowed out to live and enjoy themselves again, combined with the rise of F1’s docudrama series, adding drama and controversy where there actually wasn’t any – creating a narrative by misrepresenting and re-ordering events if necessary.

          But we do see a bias where people think predictability is a bad thing, but it really isn’t. The evidence doesn’t back that up.

          I, for one, am evidence. I like action, unpredictability and suspense. I dislike ‘sports’ that are predictable. F1 has become increasingly so for decades. I can’t truly believe that the majority of people who watch F1 really want to know what will play out before it actually does.
          The most controversial and unpredictable races almost always get the highest scores in race ratings, here and everywhere else. Those races defined as classics almost all have a very high level of unpredictability – they are great because nobody saw specific things coming or had total control over them.

        2. “F1 is one of the more predictable motorsports on the planet, that’s why people watch.”

          No, that’s utter nonsense. People don’t watch F1 for the boring aspects of it.
          People watch it because F1 is the wealthiest international motorsport league with the largest marketing machine and enjoys the prestige of having the fastest cars together with a 70 year long legacy intertwined with the development of the car industry as a whole. Formula 1 almost has a monopoly in motorsports. Most other motorsport leagues don’t even get a mention on the sports news – let alone being televized – as they are not really recognized as part of the global community of sports, and the world of motorsports is too dispersed in the first place.

          F1 to motorsports is what boxing is to combat sports. Both of them started as monopolists in their respective fields when there was nobody else to have to compete against.

        3. @Alan Dove
          “F1 is one of the more predictable motorsports on the planet, that’s why people watch.”

          And the Monaco GP is F1’s most predictable race, that’s why it’s everybody’s favourite, right? ….RIGHT??
          Haha, see how farsical your statement is? ;)

      2. S – I have no issue with unpredictability or controversy. However not starting a race because it’s raining a bit and the world’s best racing drivers might be a bit fazed by a damp track really isn’t ‘controversial’. It’s plain nonsensical. If you’re going back to Abu Dhabi and how the WDC was won, you may have a point that the controversy stirs interest – to a degree. However the recent growth has been linked more, I think, to Verstappen as a challenger to the Hamilton hegemon and DtS, which for all its hyped up content has exposed a personal dimension that goes well with the more technical side of Formula 1. Care is needed that for all the hype and controversy, those following Formula 1 at whatever level of investment are sure that it isn’t being manipulated or fixed in any way. That goes for stewarding decisions, FIA regulations (and negotiations with teams like Ferrari in the past) and teams themselves in relation to team orders and driver favouritism. All the latter eventually erode interest.
        I was kind of hopeful about the new race directors etc. but after the jewelry+underwear ‘issue’ and now the Monaco non-start because of some drizzle, I’m sceptical. Still a lot of the season to go, I guess, to find out.

    2. This all reminds me of the downfall of USAC, which sanctioned Indy car racing’s national championship for so many years without much competency. IndyCar (then the IRL) eventually booted it as its sanctioning body in 1997 and decided to self-sanction its races after USAC’s timing and scoring debacle at Texas, which resulted in the wrong winner being declared for several hours. Dropping USAC did the sport no harm and removed a long-running distraction.

      Sounds like Liberty would like to go the same route, but the question is, what can they contractually do about it?

      1. @markzastrow This is a good question, perhaps worthy of some research or a feature? ‘What if F1 ditched the FIA’?

        Can they? And if they could what are the pros / cons and are the FIA worried about such a thing?

        I was a kid at the time, but ‘the split’ in Indycar didn’t produce any winners from what I remember. *apologies if this is wrong.

        A bit like FIFA (who seem to have overplayed their hand in video game licensing), there is a bit of “yeah, but what do they actually do? And why are they so rich?” about these organisations.

        I’m not saying the FIA don’t do anything, but people can argue ‘you can have a World Cup without FIFA, you can have an F1 race without the FIA………’ and it’s a tough argument to counter……. I’m sure there’s at least one person at Liberty who is has that opinion

        1. @bernasaurus @markzastrow The problem with most of these international sports organisations (FIA, FIFA, IOC and so on) is the heavy blend of croneyism and amateurism involved, not to mention the dubious negotiations for posts and host venues.

        2. For starters, it wouldn’t be F1 without the FIA, @bernasaurus. The “F1” brand and regulatory make-up is entirely owned by the FIA.
          Add to that, any hypothetical breakaway series that took on the ‘old F1’ would have to do so under the approval of the FIA to race internationally.
          Good luck with that.

          And ultimately, let’s remember what the FIA is actually for (generally, outside of motorsport) – representing the automotive industry and its manufacturing members. The same manufacturers who wish to participate in motorsport…

        3. Oh, and the IRL/CART thing did produce many winners for quite a while. But all good things come to an end – especially when the heavyweights want more money.

  3. Cotd you are so wrong. Sainz knew first call was on his teammate, he didn’t want to be the reason Leclerc won, he did not want to be the sacrificial pawn. Sainz apart from Monaco was always taken by Max at t1, he stands to gain nothing if his teammate beats him.

    1. @peartree I actually think @Spafrancorchamps is right. The key lesson for Ferrari here is that communication and providing the right information to the driver is key. If the team had said “Inters look right for now but the other car is considering going straight to slicks, is this possible for you”, they could have given Leclerc the same options as Sainz and he could have made an informed choice. The lap is short I grant you, but they could have started that conversation at Lowes and finished it before the chicane, meaning Leclerc could have made the call in time to get a stop in.

      The strategist treating each car separately, and the team not communicating all the information to both drivers, worked against both cars in the end.

      1. Well said @geemac, and indeed @Spafrancorchamps, communication between the team and driver especially in these kind of conditions is very important. Ferrari used to have that from Vettel and Alonso, and Kimi too when it was about tyres in changing conditions, but apparently they and Leclerc need to (re)learn now. Perhaps Sainz having been in more teams also helps him there in experience?

      2. @geemac @bosyber Everyone knows the Ferrari strategists are bad, they have been bad for over a decade but especially bad when Inaki Rueda became lead strategist, he then got shifted and replaced by the 2nd guy in line. The strategies remained bad. You can suggest Sainz knew to doubt about the strategists, I think that is the biggest compliment I can give him because otherwise I just saw a man trying to get a leg up on his team mate. Also it was pretty obvious that sainz’s call threw the strategist off, so the communication you talk about contributed to the mess that is ferrari strategy. Also to note that the strategists are the only ones equipped to pick the right moment to pit, only they can see gaps, the only thing a driver can add is whether he is ready or not, and as is the case in drying conditions whether they can undercut the strategy. Also on an especially short lap, there simply is no time, you saw it with Leclerc he was already in, when the team called stay out.

    2. What are you saying doesn’t make any sense, for sure it’s not real at all. So, if I got it right: SAI can finish a random race in 2nd (LEC 1st), but he deliberately finishes P3 so that the 1st driver who beat him is not his team mate?!? Well, if so…. that’s a first! And NO, by doing such thing no driver gains anything, it’s just a complete loss.

      1. @mg1982 he has not beaten charles this season and he has often qualified ahead of Max. Go and rewatch the starts. He won’t risk t1 because he stands to gain nothing by keeping Max behind, as long as his team mate is ahead sainz is not going to win, then why risk my car for my team mate’s. Having his team mate win instead only causes the pain of not winning a lot harder. The part that you didn’t get is that max has most often than not won when sainz let him by in t1. It is not 1st lec 2nd max and then sainz, he rather be 1st max 2nd leclerc and 3rd sainz than 1st lec and 2nd sainz.

  4. Am I the only one that finds it strange that the car split in two? The car appeared to wash off a lot of speed prior to the impact and it was a decent impact, but I was still surprised, (as was Mick by the look of it).

    HAAS have had a lot of big damage so far this year, it has to be setting back their planned upgrades, maybe they will stop development now and concentrate on the 2026 regs … or put up a for sale sign.

    Disappointing after such a great start for them this year, very cruel game F1.

    1. Harry (@harrydymond)
      31st May 2022, 2:24

      Brundle said in commentary that the new regulations stipulated that the cars should split at that point more easily. First I’d heard of it, and if true I’m not sure what the rationale is behind that. I would have thought that having a fairly massive part of the car detach itself and go bouncing off who-knows-where would, on balance, not be such a great idea.

      1. It’s about dissipating energy.
        Infinitely rigid things don’t do that so well.

      2. It’s a result of Grosjean’s crash. The forces applied to the car caused the car to break in half where the fuel cell is located.

        The new regulation is to give the car a weaker, alternative breaking point that doesn’t involve turning the local area into a flaming inferno.

        1. The fuel cell remained intact in Grosjean’s crash. What caused the fire was a damaged transitory tank, carrying between five and ten (I am forgetting the exact number) liters of fuel.

        2. @Grat and @Harry @Serg thanks for the insights, maybe the transitory tank is now in the main structure, or isolated in one or the other, to limit that amount of fuel being released. Always good to understand why decisions had been made and that progress is continually being made is safety as well.

          It now makes me wonder if Daniel Ric’s McLaren might have some weakness in that area after his 2 recent practice crashes? There has to be some reason why he is so far off Lando’s pace. Lando is good and while Daniel might not be as good, he’s not .7 of a second worse, maybe .2 or .3 tops. His race lap pace in the first few events was close to Lando, but the last two events it is miles off. Maybe COVID brain fog, who knows, hopefully we find out one day?

      3. I had no idea the new cars are supposed to split like that now. I was surprised, the car looks like Alex Caffi’s 91′ crash.

        I get dissipation of energy, everything except the survival cell is designed to crumple. But those rear wheels, back wing and gearbox must weigh a fair bit (I think these F1 cars in general just weigh)……. is having them loose a good idea? I know the people who came up with this are far more qualified than me, and have simulations etc. But those wheels rotate, they could end up anywhere, trying not to hit a moving target is tough, and that seems to have the ability to move a lot.

        I’m not saying I know better, just that to me it didn’t look great at first sight.

      4. @harrydymond I agree it sounds like a bad idea. I don’t see the trade off between dissipating energy and having a big mass of the car become a projectile worthy, at least this way the wheel tethers never fail!

  5. That Jos Verstappen article it’s incredibly “ranty” about the team not favoring his son strategy to put him in front of checo.

    1. Did you expect anything else?

      I’m not sure parents’ comments should be included in the round-up unless it’s under a separate headings like “Overzealous Parents at Kids Sports Games”.

    2. @joac21 – i think Jos was complaining about not starting due the rain at 15.00 uur but i hear from several sources the delay was because of system failure due power fails …. Not sure why they didn’t sai that now they look silly.
      Yes i know it rained hard a short time but that was almost a hour later then the start of the race.
      RC failed too causious i thought untill i hear of the power failures (of the starting lights and marshall systems)

  6. Re COTD:

    I grew being told that the secret of Michael Schumacher’s success was to blindly trust in Ross Brawn and every single radio call without questioning it (Hungary 1998 for instance). Now the reasoning is “do not trust your engineers”.

    If both are true, then the problem is not in Leclerc, but in his engineers, and it’s a problem for Ferrari to fix.

    1. In those days Schumacher drove the car at its peak and he could count 110% on Brawn to come up with an answer before Schumacher even finished the question.

      Name one instance in recent years a Ferrari driver should have given his full trust in the strategy team. The amount of questioning Vettel did in later years overriding what the strategists wanted for him actually got him better results more often.

      Inaki Rueda has been responsible for Ferrari’s strategies since the start of 2015 and to me it’s a miracle that after all the reorganizing this team has went through he is not getting fired after years of incompetence.

    2. @diezcilindros Thank you mate, I’m happy there are reasonable people writing comments.
      There is a soft spot in this platform for sainz jr and therefore at any chance the platform bumps sainz up and the cotds and unfortunately it rubs on the comment section too.

  7. Seb is right. People indeed need to give Mick a break.

    How FIA handled things over the last weekend was questionable.
    The red for Tsunoda’s barrier contact was unnecessary, as was the start delay for rain & the red delay for Mick’s crash, etc.
    Additionally, neither Williams driver got penalized despite passing three light panels showing blue & not letting by at the earliest opportunity as per the ruling nor did Ocon for pushing Hamilton towards Armco going into Sainte Devote (unseen on the world feed, typical TMC).

    Toto’s suggestion of removing the post-tunnel chicane is undoable as the approach speeds into Tabac would simply be too high for a corner without any runoff & no chance to get a decently vast runoff area even without the grandstand.

    I couldn’t agree more with the COTD.

  8. It’s interesting how bad Kevin Magnussen’s joining the team has been for Schumacher. Had he still had Mazepin as a teammate, we would think he was doing a great job this season. Taking the qualifying average of 0.460s last season and applying it to every race (ignoring the fact that Mazepin might have done a Perez or Tsunoda and been much more comfortable in the new cars), we would have qualifying results of:

    Bahrain: Schumacher 11th, Mazepin 17th
    Saudi Arabia: Schumacher 13th, Mazepin 18th
    Australia: Schumacher 15th, Mazepin 16th
    Imola: Schumacher 11th, Mazepin 17th
    Miami: Schumacher 15th, Mazepin 17th
    Spain: Schumacher 9th, Mazepin 17th
    Monaco: Schumacher 14th, Mazepin 18th

    Schumacher has done okay in qualifying, but you can see how, with these results, he would probably be getting similar accolades to George Russell the last few years. He would still have had a lot of crashes, but he did last season as well.

    However, Kevin Magnussen has been 0.210s ahead of Schumacher on average. Assuming that Magnussen would have been 0.670s faster than Mazepin every time (I know I have done this slightly differently but it looks unrealistic for Schumacher to be just behind Magnussen every time), we have qualifying positions of:
    Bahrain: Schumacher 19th, Magnussen 20th
    Imola: Schumacher 18th, Magnussen 19th
    Portugal: Magnussen 18th, Schumacher 20th
    Spain: Schumacher 18th, Magnussen 19th
    Monaco: Magnussen 18th, Schumacher 20th
    Baku: Magnussen 17th, Schumacher 18th
    France: Magnussen 14th, Schumacher 15th
    Styria: Magnussen 19th, Schumacher 20th
    Austria: Magnussen 19th, Schumacher 20th
    Britain: Magnussen 19th, Schumacher 20th
    Hungary: Magnussen 19th, Schumacher 20th
    Belgium: Schumacher 18th, Magnussen 19th
    Netherlands: Magnussen 18th, Schumacher 20th
    Italy: Magnussen 18th, Schumacher 19th
    Russia: Schumacher 17th, Magnussen 19th
    Turkey: Schumacher 14th, Magnussen 20th
    USA: Magnussen 18th, Schumacher 20th
    Mexico: Magnussen 17th, Schumacher 19th
    Brazil: Magnussen 17th, Schumacher 19th
    Qatar: Schumacher 19th, Magnussen 20th
    Saudi Arabia: Schumacher 19th, Magnussen 20th
    Abu Dhabi: Schumacher 19th, Magnussen 20th

    This probably says more about Mazepin in the individual races but it doesn’t really show up Schumacher and still suggests the Haas was the slowest car on the grid. But qualifying has not been a weak point for Schumacher this season; he just needs to cut out all the crashes.

  9. playstation361
    2nd June 2022, 4:20

    Nice MV and SV have the same opinion.

Comments are closed.