It's Schumacher not Rosberg we need to reappraise

Says who exactly? The media? Was it ever verified by Schumacher, Kimi, Ferrari staff, Luca Di Montezemolo? The gutter press? Sensationalist press?

Sources please.

Everybody knows that Schumacher was compelled to retire in 2006 to make sure that his good friend and brother Massa could retain his spot at Ferrari. With such a noble cause it is obviuos that it had nothing at all to do with Raikkonen.


“Having the meeting with him (Luca Di Montezemolo) I looked at all the points, in particular that it was Felipe, who is like a brother to me. Part of the reason I retired was to hand over the car to him because he deserved to stay in a team with a top car. ”

Ok, I know that season very well and Ferrari was indeed behind Williams and McLaren during that summer of 2003...

That´s not quite what you were saying before, was it?

Personally, I thought Michael was going to lose the championship after Hungary-Italy GP (even though he won Italy), Williams was the better car (it just so happens that JPM and Kimi messed up in the USA GP, where they were right there in the fight) Schu's pace was pretty lousy during the USA and even Japanese GP when he qualifed 14th, had Rubens didn't save his day there, Ferrari would have lost the title.

No, you don´t know the season too well mate. In USA there was nothing JPM or Räikkönen could do once the weather went into intermediates range, Bridgestone tyre was way way better, so much that midfielders in BS tyre got ahead of them (every Michelin car in fact) in that phase of the race. Yes, JPM tangled with Rubens and received a... let´s say tough penalty, so putting this as a mess from him is quite severe. Räikkönen did a wonderful race, was dominating in the dry, didn´t put a foot wrong in treacherous conditions before the tyre change and was the best from the Michelin cars in just about any track conditions.

Also the times when Williams was the fastest car had passed, since the Michelin tyre shoulders were modified by FIA orders, Ferrari was the car to have in dry weather, and let´s say any Michelin car was in no position to even challenge Ferrari in inter conditions. From then to the end of the season, only time when Williams (or any Michelin car) was faster than Ferrari were the opening laps of Suzuka, and just because it was cold and there was moisture initially. As soon as BS tyres got up to speed McLaren cars fell well behind Barrichello, as would have done Montoya and Alonso hadn´t their cars failed.

Michael Schumacher should have won this title by a way bigger margin, only reason he just edged it was because other drivers were better and screwed up less. Ferrari matched Wiliams speed overall, and had way less reliability problems (0 in fact). Ferrari beated McLaren speed overall and had less reliability problems.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 02 June 2013 - 19:42.

Räikkönen did a wonderful race, was dominating in the dry,

Raikoonen was dominating anything. Schumacher was already catching him slowly but surely just before the weather changed into wet.

Also the times when Williams was the fastest car had passed, since the Michelin tyre shoulders were modified by FIA orders, Ferrari was the car to have in dry weather,

Really? The Michelin were modified after Budapest, but all that matters was temperature. Evidence ? Barrichello dominated Silverstone under cold temperature, just before all Bridgestone teams got trashed at Hockenheim and budapest. Before Silverstone , Ferrari was nowhere at Magny cours.
So Michelin got modified after Budapest, but Williams still the car to have at Monza, Indy and Japan in dry weather.

Michael Schumacher should have won this title by a way bigger margin, only reason he just edged it was because other drivers were better and screwed up less. Ferrari matched Wiliams speed overall, and had way less reliability problems (0 in fact). Ferrari beated McLaren speed overall and had less reliability problems.

2003 is the lowest season of Schumacher by any standard, still, he showed some brillance at Canada, Monza and Barcelona, by winning in an inferior car, without any reliability issues for his opponents (Montoya and Alonso). Live with it.

Michael Schumacher should have won this title by a way bigger margin, only reason he just edged it was because other drivers were better and screwed up less. Ferrari matched Wiliams speed overall, and had way less reliability problems (0 in fact). Ferrari beated McLaren speed overall and had less reliability problems.

And i think Schumacher would have won the title very early in a Williams, and just a bit later in a Mclaren.

Michael Schumacher should have won this title by a way bigger margin, only reason he just edged it was because other drivers were better and screwed up less. Ferrari matched Wiliams speed overall, and had way less reliability problems (0 in fact). Ferrari beated McLaren speed overall and had less reliability problems.

In 2003:
Williams had the faster car in Monaco, Canada, Europe, Germany, France, Hungary, and Japan.
Ferrari only had a quicker car in Australia, Brazil, San Marino, Spain, and USA.
They were too close to call around Malaysia, Austria, Great Britain, and Italy.

That's 7 races where Williams were better and only 5 races where Ferrari were better. Overall, on raw pace Williams was the car to have in 2003, but reliability equaled things out. Still, Schumacher beat Montoya by 11 points that year.

Still, Schumacher beat Montoya by 11 points that year.

You could conceivably claim that Montoya was beaten by the infamous F I A. In more ways than one at that.

You could conceivably claim that Montoya was beaten by the infamous F I A. In more ways than one at that.

Juan-Pablo never had any trouble defeating himself.. he never really needed any help from the authorities.

In 2003:
Williams had the faster car in Monaco, Canada, Europe, Germany, France, Hungary, and Japan.
Ferrari only had a quicker car in Australia, Brazil, San Marino, Spain, and USA.
They were too close to call around Malaysia, Austria, Great Britain, and Italy.

That's 7 races where Williams were better and only 5 races where Ferrari were better. Overall, on raw pace Williams was the car to have in 2003, but reliability equaled things out. Still, Schumacher beat Montoya by 11 points that year.

Pretty much this.

and McLaren was behind the two, but they had steady eddie type speed and reliability....

In 2003:
Williams had the faster car in Monaco, Canada, Europe, Germany, France, Hungary, and Japan.
Ferrari only had a quicker car in Australia, Brazil, San Marino, Spain, and USA.
They were too close to call around Malaysia, Austria, Great Britain, and Italy.

That's 7 races where Williams were better and only 5 races where Ferrari were better. Overall, on raw pace Williams was the car to have in 2003, but reliability equaled things out. Still, Schumacher beat Montoya by 11 points that year.

When Ferrari was not the faster car, that means Michelin was dominating BS. That means that Williams but also McLaren and sometimes Renault were faster on that day.

When Ferrari was the faster car, that means that BS was better or not bad enough to make Ferrari slower than Williams. But Williams were on these days still faster than McLaren and Renault, apart from one or two tracks.

The, so advantage of Williams was more than 7 times faster vs 5 times slower.

Edited by dde, 03 June 2013 - 08:45.

A lot of people are getting carried away here. If we took certain 4 race samples between Webber and Vettel we would conclude Webber was faster than Vettel because during periods in 2010 and 2012 he was not only matching him but dominating him, especially early last year when he was leading Vettel 4-2 in qualifying and had just won monaco from pole while Vettel was not even fast enough to qualify in the top 10. So take a step back because things can change, and I think they will. Hamilton is not as his best yet.

Another strange thing is history is now being rewritten to pretend Michael matched Rosberg when in reality he was thrashed like a pay driver for 2 seasons, and only matched him last year, so we need some perspective here. The thread opener listed data that showed Rosberg dominated Michael in qualifying by a very large margin and then concluded they were equal in pace that year. Very strange indeed.

Lewis is just warming up.


Rosberg is a good driver but not top notch. He struggled against Webber in his rookie season but many have forgotten, that during that season they had the most restricted practice time ever, because of engines, so Rosberg only had about 20 laps of practice before every qualifying session, so he never had a fair go that season.

Edited by matthair, 03 June 2013 - 09:46.

In 2003:

...

How would you know? You didn´t even watch it. If you´re interested in getting a proper overview instead of checking F1stats and making guesses, read here.

Oz: Ferrari. Easily the best package all weekend. Their initial tyre choice and the SC made Schumacher eat traffic all day long and couldn´t use their pace. Losing bargeboards for no reason didn´t help.
Malaysia: No way to know. Schumacher would have needed to clear T2 intact to know. Ferrari looked better, Williams were nowhere up to Monaco anyway. Let´s not score this.
Brazil: In the conditions the race was held, Ferrari easily. After last SC reagroupment, BS teams were easily fastest. By keeping it on the road he would have won.
Imola: Ferrari.
Spain: Ferrari.
Austria: Too close to call.
Monaco: Williams.
Canada: Williams.
Nurbirging: Williams.
France: Williams.
UK: Ferrari.
Germany: Williams.
Hungary: Williams.
Italy: Ferrari.
USA: Ferrari, BS tired cars had a gift from the sky.
Japan: Call it a non-score if you want, we didn´t get the fight after all, like in Malaysia. Guessing, I´d say Ferrari overall, in initial laps Michelins worked better, then track fully dried and BS wiped remanining competitive Michelin cars. I think Juan and Fernando didn´t stand a chance against Rubens had their cars survived.

Reliability.

Ferrari, bulletproof.
Williams, mediocre.

Ferrari was the best package overall (speed+reliability), and only reason it was that close was Michael being worse than JMP and especially Räikkönen over the season.

He threw away a bigger number of points by mistakes and poor pace than the other 2 contenders: crashed into Trulli in Malaysia, crashed out in Brazil by himself, crashed into JPM and was really lucky to end in the Nurburgring, was nowhere around Hungary with Ferrari showing it was strong in other hands, had a total nightmare in Japan...

He also lost less points down to bad luck than rivals (noone hit him in starts, not dodgy stewarding recieved, no DNF on the way to high scores).

Raikoonen was dominating anything. Schumacher was already catching him slowly but surely just before the weather changed into wet.

No mate. Schumacher was tip toeing and losing positions left right and center to Michelin cars until weather got wet enough for inters. He wasn´t catching anyone. Check your facts.

Really? The Michelin were modified after Budapest, but all that matters was temperature. Evidence ? Barrichello dominated Silverstone under cold temperature, just before all Bridgestone teams got trashed at Hockenheim and budapest. Before Silverstone , Ferrari was nowhere at Magny cours. So Michelin got modified after Budapest, but Williams still the car to have at Monza, Indy and Japan in dry weather.

Michelin cars lost performance after the modificaction. Evidence? The temperature dependance you point out was like that generally, but Monza arrived and the Ferrari was the car to have under the heat straight away. Michelin only ever outpaced BS from that point on on slicks under moisture (Japan early laps, USA early laps). As soon as they got some temperature Michelin cars would be slower on the long runs, which didn´t happen before.

2003 is the lowest season of Schumacher by any standard, still, he showed some brillance at Canada, Monza and Barcelona, by winning in an inferior car, without any reliability issues for his opponents (Montoya and Alonso). Live with it.

Yes he showed brilliance here and there, agree (Canada was great, he soaked serious pressure. Ferrari inferior at Spain and Monza not even in your dreams).

But that´s not the discussion, if he was still good or not. He was worse than the other title contenders overall, which is my point. He made more mistakes, crashed racing wheel to wheel and by himself more often, and had boogie pace races more often than them, and despite being much luckier than the other contenders (no involved in start crashes he didn´t cause himself, no unreliability on the way to wins), his mistakes nearly costed him a title having the best car overall.

Edited by Skinnyguy, 04 June 2013 - 00:24.

And before anyone else misses my point, which I think some are doing, it´s not a MS bash. He´s the best ever.

This is about the 2003 pecking order, and the performances of the driver´s title contenders. And considering speed + reliability, Ferrari was the best package that particular season, followed very closely by Williams, and a little further down by McLaren. Sort of what WCC reflects.

About drivers, Räikkönen was the man of the season followed closely by Montoya and then Michael Schumacher.

Räikkönen made big mistakes in Spain and Canada qualifying, had boogie pace in Suzuka and that´s about all he did wrong.
His bad luck counter included a retirement from the lead in Nurburgring and getting hit in the Hockenheim start.

Montoya spun off the lead in Australia, crashed out in Brazil, had boogie pace in Imola, a silly spin in Canada, a 50-50 collision with Rubens in USA and that´s it.
His bad luck counter includes two mechanical retirements from the lead and a so-so penalty in USA.

Schumacher hit Trulli in Malaysia, crashed out in Brazil, hit Montoya in Nurburgring, had boogie pace in Hungary, made big mistake in qualifying in Suzuka, where he then crashed into Sato during the race.
His bad luck counter didn´t even get started, can´t thin of anything. In fact he got some gifts if anything: got out of a graveltrap in a unconventional way in Nurburgring and got a gift from the sky in USA when it was really looking bad for him.

Check your facts.




Yes he showed brilliance here and there, agree (Canada was great, he soaked serious pressure. Ferrari inferior at Spain and Monza not even in your dreams).

Perhaps you should check your facts.

In Monza, JPM had the car to win the race. That MS 'stole' pole & held on like a tiger against a rampant JPM (that was before the DRM days that we have now) was clearly not MS's fault. JPM almost overtook him at the start but failed to make it stick. After that the 2 were tied to a shoe-string. The Williams was clearly the faster car but could not get past a very wide Ferrari.

What about Hamilton fans

Suicide hotlines would break down.

Schumacher was fortunate and unfortunate that his dominant years coincided with the worst years of racing in F1. Refueling was a horrible time, particularly 2001 - 2005.

Moving back to the main topic, here's my thoughts on Schumi.

My questions are, during the Schumi dominant years, what are the type of car handling characteristics he has from the tire, a tire that allows pointy front end, great grip, and over-steering rear end which he always used throttle to dance around in mid corner? Those type of characteristics suits his strength?

Driving style and Car characteristics -
In his comeback, how different are the tire characteristics? Does that mean he can't drive around or setup the car to suit his natural driving style?
Did he has to totally change his setup and driving style to suit the new F1 car? How much he has to adapt?
Could that explain why he was better in 2011 / 2012 vs 2010?

Race strategy -
Secondly, his previous strength during dominance years is the sprints in between pitstops, especially going faster and faster nearer to pitstop window, with his infamous in-laps / out-laps, that was definitely his strength. In this new F1 era, all of these are changed, its more of tire preservation, stopping earlier to jump the drivers instead of stopping later?



Well, even though the results are unflattering in his comeback, but I would think that he did a brilliant job, and still proved what a good package he is at 40s -
- he may have to totally change his setup and driving style to suit the new F1 car. Doing so relatively well in his 40s deserves huge respect. Usually the biggest problem with older drivers are the inability to adapt.
It is not so easy to adapt to something that requires the opposite of your driving instincts (I assume that may have been required of Schumi), especially when you have been racing for 15 years. Though not exactly relevant, but just look at Rossi's failure to adapt to Ducati.

- new F1 race strategy that does not play into his strength anymore, that took away most of the advantage he used to have. Yet, if he still does well, or relatively successful in adapting to new race approach speaks alot of volume for that old guy.

- Whether Schumi lose alittle speed or more speed in his 40s, you just can't deny that this guy in his prime would have been faster still.
A 3 years sabbatical is not going to help matters when he is in his 40s, when you are out of competitive racing or practise for 3 years, it is not going to do you any good at all, it may prevent burn out, but it may also "slow" down his senses abit.

As many said, going into 40s, the senses start to deteriorate, reflexes slows abit, is that the possible explanations that explain some dumb crashes by Schumi, such as running into back of (if I can recall) Maldanado in Valencia? A few of these clumsy crashes by Schumi is a result of him losing some senses and reflex? I think it may be possible. The crashes are definitely not down to pressure, Schumi has zero pressure in his comeback years compared to his winning years.


All these taken into consideration, I am the one who believe Schumi did a brilliant job, and proved that when it comes to discipline, systematic approach and motivation, NO ONE to date has ever come close to Schumi. I think it also proved what a competitive package this guy is in his 40s.
In my opinion, instead of what the press would like to paint it, that Schumi is destroying his own reputation in his come back, I think the opposite happens, he did add to his achievements for being able to get respectable result in view of such different conditions compared to his prime, and to do that in his 40s. Just one word, RESPECT.

Edited by gx1, 04 June 2013 - 02:14.

How would you know? You didn´t even watch it. If you´re interested in getting a proper overview instead of checking F1stats and making guesses, read here.

Man, take it easy with the ego. I watched the season very well, and you don't need to tell me online about it.

Oz: Ferrari. Easily the best package all weekend. Their initial tyre choice and the SC made Schumacher eat traffic all day long and couldn´t use their pace. Losing bargeboards for no reason didn´t help.

It was only the best package in qualifying, Montoya carried more fuel on board in the race, and would have won without his spin.

Imola: Ferrari.
Spain: Ferrari.
Austria: Too close to call.
Monaco: Williams.
Canada: Williams.
Nurbirging: Williams.
France: Williams.

Agree with it all.

UK: Ferrari.

Nope, if you were actually paying attention to Montoya's drive, then they you'll realize that they were at least equal. Montoya was one position ahead of Schumacher before the SC came in, and finished 20 seconds ahead, and only 5 seconds behind Rubens. Get your facts straight.

Germany: Williams.
Hungary: Williams.
Italy: Ferrari.

Again, you're wrong. The whole weekend was a very close fight between JPM and MSC, Juan was even catching Michael before a Sauber annoyed him, overall Williams were at least as good Ferrari in Monza.

USA: Ferrari, BS tired cars had a gift from the sky.
Japan: Call it a non-score if you want, we didn´t get the fight after all, like in Malaysia. Guessing, I´d say Ferrari overall, in initial laps Michelins worked better, then track fully dried and BS wiped remanining competitive Michelin cars. I think Juan and Fernando didn´t stand a chance against Rubens had their cars survived.

Then how come Ralf was the fastest car in the race even when the track dried up? He even almost overtook Michael on merit alone, and Fernando was keeping up with Rubens on a bone-dry track the whole way until his engine blew.

Clueless much? Williams had the fastest car in 2003, get it over with.

Reliability.

Ferrari, bulletproof.
Williams, mediocre.

Williams reliability mediocre? Juan had 2 reliability failures throughout the whole year, which cost him 18 points. Michael had a puncture in Germany, which cost him 6 points. So overall, Schumacher would still have came within 1 point of Montoya in 2003 even without reliability being a factor, despite driving a slower car.

Edited by Kingshark, 04 June 2013 - 03:01.

I think most parties have had the opportunity to launch punch & counter-punch regarding 2003, however as well constructed both sides of the argument have been, it's off-topic in relation to the idea of the thread.

Namely, in light of Rosberg so far showing up well against Hamilton - who for the most part is regarded as a top quality driver- should we re-appraise MS performances in 2010-12 when he was often slated for losing to a "journeyman".

If we can't get back on-topic, then this topic will rapidly draw to a close.

Thanks
MM

Moving back to the main topic, here's my thoughts on Schumi.

My questions are, during the Schumi dominant years, what are the type of car handling characteristics he has from the tire, a tire that allows pointy front end, great grip, and over-steering rear end which he always used throttle to dance around in mid corner? Those type of characteristics suits his strength?

His results in his dominant years were because of his cars not because he drove better than previous years. He was amazing through the 90s through various regulations

http://www.motorspor...chers-comeback/

Reading this page reminds me once more how terrible tire wars are.

Moving back to the main topic, here's my thoughts on Schumi.

My questions are, during the Schumi dominant years, what are the type of car handling characteristics he has from the tire, a tire that allows pointy front end, great grip, and over-steering rear end which he always used throttle to dance around in mid corner? Those type of characteristics suits his strength?

Driving style and Car characteristics -
In his comeback, how different are the tire characteristics? Does that mean he can't drive around or setup the car to suit his natural driving style?
Did he has to totally change his setup and driving style to suit the new F1 car? How much he has to adapt?
Could that explain why he was better in 2011 / 2012 vs 2010?

Race strategy -
Secondly, his previous strength during dominance years is the sprints in between pitstops, especially going faster and faster nearer to pitstop window, with his infamous in-laps / out-laps, that was definitely his strength. In this new F1 era, all of these are changed, its more of tire preservation, stopping earlier to jump the drivers instead of stopping later?



Well, even though the results are unflattering in his comeback, but I would think that he did a brilliant job, and still proved what a good package he is at 40s -
- he may have to totally change his setup and driving style to suit the new F1 car. Doing so relatively well in his 40s deserves huge respect. Usually the biggest problem with older drivers are the inability to adapt.
It is not so easy to adapt to something that requires the opposite of your driving instincts (I assume that may have been required of Schumi), especially when you have been racing for 15 years. Though not exactly relevant, but just look at Rossi's failure to adapt to Ducati.

- new F1 race strategy that does not play into his strength anymore, that took away most of the advantage he used to have. Yet, if he still does well, or relatively successful in adapting to new race approach speaks alot of volume for that old guy.

- Whether Schumi lose alittle speed or more speed in his 40s, you just can't deny that this guy in his prime would have been faster still.
A 3 years sabbatical is not going to help matters when he is in his 40s, when you are out of competitive racing or practise for 3 years, it is not going to do you any good at all, it may prevent burn out, but it may also "slow" down his senses abit.

As many said, going into 40s, the senses start to deteriorate, reflexes slows abit, is that the possible explanations that explain some dumb crashes by Schumi, such as running into back of (if I can recall) Maldanado in Valencia? A few of these clumsy crashes by Schumi is a result of him losing some senses and reflex? I think it may be possible. The crashes are definitely not down to pressure, Schumi has zero pressure in his comeback years compared to his winning years.


All these taken into consideration, I am the one who believe Schumi did a brilliant job, and proved that when it comes to discipline, systematic approach and motivation, NO ONE to date has ever come close to Schumi. I think it also proved what a competitive package this guy is in his 40s.
In my opinion, instead of what the press would like to paint it, that Schumi is destroying his own reputation in his come back, I think the opposite happens, he did add to his achievements for being able to get respectable result in view of such different conditions compared to his prime, and to do that in his 40s. Just one word, RESPECT.

Nice piece of writing. My compliments.

Schumacher's comeback showed that he could still hang with the elite in F1.

In respect to NR, he was more or less equal to him in 2011 and 2012.

Now, people will pull out points and wins etc..... However, like Einstein said, Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.

Let us bypass NR for a moment and view perhaps the best example of old school defensive driving in the last 5 years. Monza 2011.



I do not need to reassess much concerning MS's comeback. FA, SV, LH were the crème de la crème. And MS drove superbly, mistakes notwithstanding

a bit off-topic but I just watched malaysia 1999 and schumacher spent the whole race trying to go slowly and slow mika down and yet he found himself leading the race by several seconds and had to slow down yet again to let irvine through and all that after coming back from an injury , if he was going full speed he would have probably lapped all the field, schumacher is really something else

a bit off-topic but I just watched malaysia 1999 and schumacher spent the whole race trying to go slowly and slow mika down and yet he found himself leading the race by several seconds and had to slow down yet again to let irvine through and all that after coming back from an injury , if he was going full speed he would have probably lapped all the field, schumacher is really something else

One of the greatest things he ever done - he came back and trashed the whole field, wasn't he nearly one second faster in qualifying than the second placed driver? What a demonstration of his skills.. often forgotten because he had to work for Irvine, coming to race day it could have been one if his greatest wins ever..

Edited by 1Devil1, 05 June 2013 - 17:36.

One of the greatest things he ever done - he came back and trashed the whole field, wasn't he nearly one second faster in qualifying than the second placed driver? What a demonstration of his skills.. often forgotten because he had to work for Irvine, coming to race day it could have been one if his greatest wins ever..

He would've spent all the race looking after his tyres in today's F1

What stands out for me:

• The age thing isn't as valid as people here are claiming. Yes, in general there are certain losses around 40. However, people age at different rates. We can't just throw out a blanket statement that Schumacher has lost .X seconds as it just may not be true.
• I understand the original question, but after this handful of races it seems premature regarding making conclusions about who compares to someone else.
• Our predispositions have a lot of effect on what we say. Schumacher and Hamilton, for various reasons, seem to polarize the fan base positively and negatively. There's not much of a middle ground with them, so it appears. On the other hand, Rosberg has been in the background most of his career. He just hasn't been that visible. This is not a commentary on his talent, it's just how things have worked out.