It's Schumacher not Rosberg we need to reappraise

We have to reappraise Nico, not MS.

MS was fast but dependent of TC to sustain his race pace.
Also MS had a stronger voice in car development at Mercedes so every car upgrade used to hurt Nico's pace, bcs it was very particular to MS.
MS was great in a specific time of F1, but just couldn't adapt to the non-TC time and became extinct.

These driver associations/permutations can lead to wrongful conclusions.
If we go back in time, we can also speculate that Webber is much better than Rosber Jr bcs at Williams he was totally dominated.
So Webber > Schumy

Two mistakes? There were more incidents than that.
I would say it's comical to run through the wrong pit-box, it loses you a few seconds, but it doesn't end your own and others race........;)

Edited by ivand911, 30 May 2013 - 17:31.

The only difference is the car as I said. If you drive in the middle you can have crashes, remember Monaco? If you drive at the front things change.

The only difference is the car as I said. If you drive in the middle you can have crashes, remember Monaco? If you drive at the front things change. MS have 2 mistakes last year? And some still say he was not guilty in Senna incident. It was said by JV(he said you can't change direction in braking area). It is clumsy to stop in wrong pit-box also. But this things happen.

Edited by jav, 30 May 2013 - 17:40.

Ivan- I'm an MS fan too but I have to disagree. Kimi's first year back was more succesful than MS first year back and not just because of the car. MS first year back, he did NOT beat his team mate in the same car...Kimi did, by big margin. He outscored his team mate by more than double. Yes MS finished 7th in his first year and Kimi 3rd... that could be car dependant BUT the spread to his teamate was not.

Edited by ivand911, 30 May 2013 - 17:54.

You were the one who wanted to put a number to it and you also seemed to genuinely ask me for my opinion and I genuinely gave it. It's not like I stated it as fact. But why ask when you had already decided your response even before you got my answer?

I don't think you can measure the effect of age like a mathematician - 3 tenths or 5 tenths slower. Unquantifiable.

But what is clear is that 10 or 20 years in a top sport takes its toll and people get exhausted and have less energy, less sparkle. Even in chess people get past their prime. Schumacher may still have been pretty fast, but he sure wasn't as spectacular as when he was young and full of youthful energy. Of that I am certain about.

Sorry, cross comparisons don´t work.

We don´t know what´s happening. Rosberg might have always been top material in crap cars, he might have been upped his game year by year. Lewis might not be up to speed, or he might be, and it´s just that Rosberg was always just as good as him. We don´t know. Drivers shape change across months, let alone across seasons. All we can say is that Rosberg has been recently doing really well against strong teammates. Time to give him credit.

If cross comparisons don't work. How do we know Lewis is a strong teammate? It's no direct cross comparison but we use his performance against another driver in the past to judge him. He did well against Alonso or Button. But perhaps both were not up to there game or the regulation didn't suit them or Lewis hit his prime in 2007 between 2010. Of course we all aware of these tricky comparisons because they don't work like Rosberg>Schumacher>Massa>Raikkonen for example. But we use them all the time - quite often. Regulations are very stable for the last three years, so I see no reason why Rosberg suddenly became better or worse. And the cross comparisons between Rosberg, Schumacher and Hamilton is not perfect, you would never know, but far more accurate and debatable than to say Webber is better than Rosberg so he must be better than Schumacher because the time gap in between was much bigger.

Edited by ivand911, 30 May 2013 - 18:11.

Only 4 races and limited testing isn't bad considering he had been driving a completely different car for the last 2 years.

If Mamsell had a decent amount of motivation (I think by this point in his carrer he didn't) he could have made a better fist of it.

I'm not really getting the who Schumacher was older so he lost at least 3 tenths (or up to 7 some people claim) argument. All drivers on the grid are of different ages so does that mean we can say button is 10 years older than Perez so Button in his prim would be 3 - 7 tenths quicker than he is now? Or same for Webber V Vettel?

We have to reappraise Nico, not MS.

MS was fast but dependent of TC to sustain his race pace.
Also MS had a stronger voice in car development at Mercedes so every car upgrade used to hurt Nico's pace, bcs it was very particular to MS.
MS was great in a specific time of F1, but just couldn't adapt to the non-TC time and became extinct.

These driver associations/permutations can lead to wrongful conclusions.
If we go back in time, we can also speculate that Webber is much better than Rosber Jr bcs at Williams he was totally dominated.
So Webber > Schumy

I wanted to know whether your opinion was based on a realistic expectation. I now know.

What sopa wrote above I can agree with;


I couldn't possibly translate that into a number like 7/10ths.

Given how the human body develops, it hits its peak between 25-35, before remaining static for a few years and then it starts deteriorating when one approaches 40. That is why we see drivers perform at their best in between the ages of 25 and 35 before their performance starts to slightly deteriorate as they approach 40. And around that age of 40, the eyes start to deteriorate too. So the ones who remain after 40, well after 40 in Schumi's case, would invariably be performing at a level lower than they did at their peak. That is why I can't subscribe to the idea that the 43 year old Schmi was as fast as the 37 year old one.

Given how the human body develops, it hits its peak between 25-35, before remaining static for a few years and then it starts deteriorating when one approaches 40. That is why we see drivers perform at their best in between the ages of 25 and 35 before their performance starts to slightly deteriorate as they approach 40. And around that age of 40, the eyes start to deteriorate too. So the ones who remain after 40, well after 40 in Schumi's case, would invariably be performing at a level lower than they did at their peak. That is why I can't subscribe to the idea that the 43 year old Schmi was as fast as the 37 year old one.

Reappraisal?
...
Steady fans - never in doubt, all personal bias notwithstanding. Equipment (mainly simulator), and different rules and culture in terms of driving style of course did not help, but substance of a racer never vapor, and Schumacher was - well - Schumacher. Legend in our time, take it or leave it. I take it.

You are describing an average physiology with sweeping generalisations. I'm no fan of Schumacher, but I always figured F1 drivers to be above average with the physiological factors which mattered.

Edited by gillesthegenius, 30 May 2013 - 19:09.

If cross comparisons don't work. How do we know Lewis is a strong teammate?

The fact that a 43 year old Schumi even kept up with Rosberg makes me wonder how many of the current 'top drivers' he would have humbled in his hey day. Just shows how silly the 'he never had a top team mate' brigade were. No one wins as much as he did without being head and shoulders above one's generation.

Edited by driver1, 30 May 2013 - 19:26.

Schumacher finally in 2010-2012 showed his true level, he has shown what he can achieve without fastest car and without cheats, in equal conditions, without unlimited tests, without team-mate "number two." We all saw it .

And It's just no coincidence that the last driver to consistently compete at a high level after the age of 40 drove almost 50 years ago.

Don't confuse correlation and causation.

Edited by 1Devil1, 30 May 2013 - 20:10.

Would should we do - ask all old drivers to came back to proof a point?

Judging ms's comeback against 6 drives from LH in a new team and car, gotta love how Internet forums work.

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.

His comeback was like watching a different driver entirely, too calm and relaxed, nothing to gain and nothing to lose style. There were glimpses of old but they were all too brief.

Edited by George Costanza, 30 May 2013 - 21:14.

I'm tired of reading these praises for Schumacher I completely disagree with that. Once again I repeat - Schumacher finally in 2010-2012 showed his true level, he has shown what he can achieve without fastest car and without cheats, in equal conditions, without unlimited tests, without team-mate "number two." We all saw it . One pole in Monaco and one lucky podium in Valencia for 3 years - it's too small to be considered the best driver. Schumacher has never been the fastest driver. Yes, he could beat such drivers as Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, Ralf Schumacher, etc. Because they were not great. But he lost to Mansell, Prost, Senna, Hakkinen, Alonso, and finally outright lost to his teammate Rosberg. So only one Ayrton Senna is a legendary champion and the greatest racing driver in history, but never Schumacher! Ayrton Senna - the greatest!

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.

Schumacher's comeback, in my opinion, was still unsuccessful--even considering Rosberg's recent performances--because he didn't manage to fulfill his goal of winning an eighth championship, let alone a race. Monaco 2012's pole position was perhaps the high point, but a driver who I think many would agree belongs in the all-time top-tier doesn't need to spend three years trundling around the midfield, even if he is beating one of this generation's highest-rated talents.

Schumi never struck me as one who needed or wanted the petty approval of the media or fickle fans from victory in teammate battles or being 'good without the best car'--the results were his ultimate goal above all else. Because of this and the fact that he barely managed to add anything to his resume, I'd still class his comeback as a failure, even if I do think he was only a whisker behind/ahead of Rosberg alternatingly in 2011/2012.

If it were just about results, he would have never joined Ferrari in 1996.

...or overestimated Hamilton, and now we see him in different light. Argument is not very straightforward.

I'm not really getting the who Schumacher was older so he lost at least 3 tenths (or up to 7 some people claim) argument.

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.

Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....

Edited by George Costanza, 31 May 2013 - 00:46.

2005 is not a fair deal given the tire situation...

Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....

Edited by hupholland, 31 May 2013 - 00:49.

Were 2002 - 2004 a fair deal given the tire situation?

36/37 years old is not prime, and certainly he was not murdered in 2006, just a bit unlucky maybe.

You can say what you want about Schumacher, but if you can still perform at the highest level, at that age, in a sport that's still evolving, I think you can only give credits to that guy.. I don't see Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton still acting at that level when they are at that age...

Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....

Edited by gillesthegenius, 31 May 2013 - 01:12.

And yet you do so anyway, and with some conviction. Why stick with 7/10ths? Why not make it a whole second and be done with it?

Even if I agree with your assesment that he got murdered - which I think is just gross hyperbole - how can we even prove that the Renaults of those years wasn't much better than the Ferraris that they had to compete with? And in the same way, how well did Damon Hill murder Schumi in 96. Btw I'm talking about three championships in which I cheered for the ultimate champion.

Edited by ThomFi, 31 May 2013 - 02:26.

If it were just about results, he would have never joined Ferrari in 1996.