http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/04/sports/prix.php




I found this interview, with alot of the usual nonsense regarding MS going to Ferrari, then getting Brawn, Martinelli, Bryne and all that, very interesting, I haven't heard much quotes on MS on the development side of things, I thought he did alot in motivating the team, and testing until the sun came down in those years before ferrari were up and running, but to hear Michael influencing strong engine proposals, very interesting from the head of the Reneult engine program back then Benard Dudot. MS was more then a driver, such a huge influence within the team to help with suggestions, that it seems were useful in developments that wouldn't of happened without MS's input.

Great article, many may have missed this, add this to the Schumacher Legend collection bucket.


Important quote
But Schumacher, he said, has a greater understanding of every area - engine, aerodynamics, chassis and tires.



This is why Michael, can come back anytime he wants and be fast in a f1 car, technically he's probabley still the best in retirement, having raced all sorts of cars and rules, and with f1 rules going back in time a bit, MS retired at the right time to take a rest, and not lose too much information, he still checks things, telemetry wise on his laptop while watching the races at home. He sure is a force still. Its no joke his test with slick tyres in the winter gave everyone the goosebumps with his freakishly fast speed, it's excellent he's still on it for his fans, he of cource will suffer from self-doubt, he menstioned this a while ago, it's what keeps him in the game, the quest for improving and exploring the limits. Over confidence can be a weakness-quote Ron Dennis, thus it's good to have some self doubt, keep the nerves going, the intensity to drive as if the devil is on your back, fastest lap after fastest lap Brazil 2006 style.

Nostalgia?
This really relates to a far while ago...



What did Prost do? Come up to the enginners and gently ask them for improvement?

But you can relate MS's Engine's proposals as a testament that a f1's drivers role, is not confined to just driving the car, other drivers are just drivers, MS was more then that, it shows how many drivers in the current field are technically just lacking, Kimi for example is just a fast driver, Ferrari never expected the same level of proposals from Kimi and Massa, Ferrari essentially were used to MS's input in all areas behind the scenes, he's already tested a 2009 configuration car, why because ferrari are being kind? Or they need him and he's happy to help the team.

Nostalgia don't relate to MS, because he's still active and helping modern day ferrari, but from the past quotes, we understand a bit better what makes MS technically the best from the drivers we've seen in the many eras gone by.
The standards of MS effect current f1 still, he's still involved in some capacity.

It would be really interesting to get more details on how Schumacher worked with his engineers. What were his proposals, how did they improve the car or enable him to extract more from the car.

Obi

But we probabley would never know, magicians don't reveal their secrets, but what we know when MS started out at Ferrari, was he made reliability a target from the offset, whatever MS learned and proposed at Renault, I'm sure he took alot of that with him to Ferrari, then of cource he worked with Byrne, so MS at his young age even that, was very clever in realising who to surround himself with, he knew the team game so well, and team +driver =success, he knew that, and promoted it in a majority of his interviews.

I want to know here in racing comments forum also how Fangio preferred to setup his car.

MS just sucked in 2005 then. He drove badly and gave awful input in addition.

Well MS no longer races in F1 and I'd be surprised if any secrets remained on a thirteen year old engine. As to making reliability a target, did the Ferrari engineers really need Michael to tell them that was a priority?

Obi

SeanValen, reading your everpraising Schumacher-comments makes me wonder what do you consider as his weakness? MS is after all a human being and therefore has to have weaknesses.;)

Definitely.

His weakness and fear №1 was having a strong teammate with wdc potential on even footing in a team.

His weakness №2 was pressure when competition was close.

end of 1994, 1997, 1998, 2003 and 2006 were all good examples.

2003 was a standout one followed by 2006. In 2003 particularly there were too many mistakes including very stupid ones in Australia, Brazil, Malaysia in succession, then Nurburgring and especially Suzuka.

His mentality was weak on occasion of unexpected difficulties such as 2005. He had a chance of getting easy points and regular podiums, even wins on a couple occasions. But that was a poor season from him, too many mistakes again culminating in hilarious chinese gp.

Exactly that season MS started thinking of his retirement.

I imagine if he found himself in Minardi 2001 or Macca 2007 he would have resigned from the sport in mid-season after some hystrical failures like in Spa-98.

In regard of MS testing/developing abilities please read some nice comments from Ms former teammate Eddie Irvine which is more credible for sure.

"Testing is not my favorite occupation, but it's like another day in the office, you get down to it, and do the job in hand. It's a misconception to say that Michael is great at testing and I'm not. I've had a lot more input in set up than people think. DC remarked that Ferrari were missing Michael's technical input and feed back when I took over as number one. Basically, Michael is an amazingly talented driver, but I don't think test driving was his particularly strong point . He is so talented that he'll just drive through a problem. Sometimes that much natural talent can be a hindrance when you're testing small changes in a car. In 1997 he tried out the biggest aerodynamic step forward we'd ever had at Ferrari. He didn't like it and they put it back in the truck. I didn't test it then as he just said it was awful, but I tested it the following week and went a half a second faster. The biggest step forward we've ever made and it was sitting in the back of the truck at Nurburgring!
Undeterred, we eventually got him to try it again and he found he went a half a second faster, so naturally he used it on the car. Michael was like that when he first came to Ferrari and didn't want the two pedal system which I'd been using, initially saying he wanted to stay with the three pedal, until he found out he could go quicker and that it was the way forward. Sometimes I feel Michael can be resistant to trying anything new. Occasionally you have to go with the flow and just do it, see what it's like and then decide if it is worth it or not.
It was the same when we started testing this year. Michael drove the car for the first three weeks and then I drove it at Mugello, and I thought "Shit, there's something very strange at the rear end". I came in and complained about it and found they'd been testing for three weeks with too stiff a rear end. They softened it off and the car then felt fantastic.
Some people have cited his testing at Benetton as an example of his brilliance on the track. He went one and a half seconds quicker than Johnny at one test, and so instantly became the test maestro. I can't talk about Benetton, but I know what goes on at Ferrari and it isn't as simple as that. I'm not taking anything away from his brilliance on the track, he is a genius, but that doesn't mean he can automatically excel at everything else.
But, to give him his due, Michael is highly motivated and he has the ability to get everyone working to his tune, which is a very good quality to have in a sport like Formula One. No one can accuse him of not putting in the hours; sometimes, it's difficult to get him away from the track. ...Michael... is outstanding at getting the most from the car... Perhaps Michael and I have taken things from each other. I am better at spotting what's not right with the car and he's been a maestro at teaching the finer points of motor racing, and how to squeeze that extra few tenths from the car by driving it a little differently. And there's no doubt that when push came to shove at the end of the season, he was right there behind me. He's great team-mate - my dream number two."

What a post i don't know if i should cry or laugh.

2003 was a poor season if you compare it to the real good ones, but still he got that world title by taking the most wins and getting the most points, the Ferrari was a good car but often (especially in that summer) the bridgestones werent all that. Still it worked out in the end.

In 2005 the Ferrari and the Bridgestones were piss poor and michael never had any realistic chances of a victory. The F2004M was just a patch for the rule changes and wasnt designed for that and it showed. The F2005 was brought in early because of that and they had little to no spare parts for it the first race, he took everything out of that car just look at rubens his performances that year and you know why rubens was the 2nd fiddle and michael the world champion.

then 2006, michael made some mistakes but the car also had a lot of problems compared to previous seasons and still he managed to fight back and actually was going to win the WDC until a couple of laps before the end of the japanese GP were his engine gave away, then he made another stellar run in brazil and doing the best overtaking manouvre of that year.

Besides that you miss the testing point. Michael can point out what exactly is wrong with the car that's no problem. The problem is he can also drive around the problem and still be fast so you might think there isnt a problem. The fact that if eddie requested some changes and the car felt better doesnt mean that michael will go faster. All drivers prefer a different setup most of the times.

If there are weaknesses, is that he's human like you said, he's had mistakes and miscalculations, all drivers do, but because he was so naturally fast, and worked very hard, he largely got the results he deserved most of the time, no body is perfect.. Also he probabley didn't handle the media the best way, but you can counter that by observing he was a introvert largely, all time was devoted to winning, Senna was the same-very serious and introverted and while with Ferrari, he didn' really relax until he won the title, notice once Michael won the 2000 title, he cooled off, and enjoyed the driving more.

Michael was in the limelight alot, 16 year career, of cource anyone can pick out bad days, but largely he was consistently on it with hard work and delivering for his team, Tiger Woods also commented on Schumacher's consistency at the top, it's what set him apart,.


With Michael, he always treated his team with the belief, of winning together and losing together, he didn't ever speak out of line, after a bad result, there was a rebound with just hard work, it was always "we" with Michael, never "I". If the team loves you like a family, they are gonna work with that extra passion to work all night if needed be, these small details help in the overall success, a gp weekend is hectic, happy people work better.




Reliability at Ferrari wasn't all that, the standards everyone takes for granted these days for reliability wasn't there back then. And in 96/97, especially 96, reliability wasn't all there, Ferrari was dnfing so early at times, it was embarrising, so of cource MS wasn't happy, but it was the first season. Alot of people were calling for Jean Todt's resignation after a tough 1996, but MS spoke out, that Todt was one of the team's strenghts, and yence he was right, as time would prove. I read all this in f1 racing mags, quotes/articles. Ferrari was a broken team when he joined, don't forget that, and when MS left, ferrari is a different place now, a place drivers wanna go to, rather then stay clear.

1. And thats why he won so much. No team mates taking points off him. If Rubens has been his equal he would never have in 03.
2. 1994. Anybody with half a brain knows that it was Hill's mistake. He had every right to close the door and Hill went for it.
1997. He had no right to be in that Position at the end of the year. Jaques should have had that championship wound up but he didn't.
2003. The updated version of the F2002 was not the car of its former or later self. You could say that it was the test season between the most dominant season's ever in f1.
2006. The car was not quite there yet. A tired Michael at the start of the season 'due to huge winter testing' made mistakes in the first 3 events. From Imola on it was ice cold schumi, his only blemish would be Monaco qualifying.

If you are so blind to not admit that the 2005 Ferrari was the 4th best car on the grid then your should stop watching f1.
Renault, McLaren, Toyota where all better cars. Michael Made the difference. Beat 5 other cars that he should not have.

Michael got the podiums in 2005 that he could. The only race Michael looked at winning in 2005 was Imola.

I'm as laudatory of Shuey as the OP, so I'll give this a shot.

I think his #1 weakness is that his desire to win generally exceeded his judgement and sense of fairness. The cheating scandals really do put a black mark next to his name, whether it was stopping on the track during qualifying or whatever.

However if he had the choice, I believe he'd take being 7-time champ and being seen as a blackguard over being a media darling and giving up even one of his crowns.

Another guy, whose ruthless will to win has exceeded his sense of decorum, shall we say, is Lance Armstrong. It's a nice comparison since they are both 7-time champs and those are equally impressive records.

Also I think he is very spoiled, meaning he is used to getting his way.

On the positive side, I think a lot of this discussion boils down to, he is a really smart guy. I'd be willing to bet that he has one of the highest IQs of recent F1 drivers.

And smart people tend to be really stubborn.

It was Damon`s mistake that MS being under pressure spun out and terminally hit the wall in the ultimately decisive race of the season?



Don`t make me laugh. MS could have easily won the title in reality and not in somebody`s fantasies. Once again being in the same situation MS made a mistake in defense and when found out he was losing MS cheated as usual.



blah-blah-blah.

Stupid mistakes he did in many races that season had nothing to do with the car which was competitive. After resort-like 2002 competition arrived with pressure for MS 2003.



The car was fantastic from the start and since US gp it beacme uber dominant. In Bahrein MS went 1 fuel burning lap in Q3 slower than 120%, and exactly that lap he was not reimbursed was the reason why he lost deadly close race against Alonso.

In Australia the team made a mistake in tyre choice. Ask Mr. Brawn but Michael robbed himself from the definite podium finish. In Malaysia MS spectacularly lost to his new secondello Massa who started from the last row while MS started from 14th place.
You forgot to add Hungary(6 remarkeable mistakes in the race) and Turkey.



The car was not the best I agree. But average secondello Rubens scored too many points and exactly that year the percentage of Barrichello points tally to MS tally was the highest during his stay at Ferrari.
It could have been even higher should Barrichello not robbed by the team from the very close infamous race win at US gp. For half the race distance Rubens was instructed to slow down all the time.

Once again Michael did quite a few stupid mistakes, lost easy Imola win in the qualy and culminated the season in my favourite chinese gp.



Hungary too and Bahrein either but there was a mechanical failure.

Michael did go faster after Eddie`s input. Read the quote again please ;) .

I can only imagine what real testing / developing monsters of all times Alain Prost and Damon Hill could have done with those Ferraris.

Definitely true. Michael for sure is a big reference for future regulations, as he can allow to see the bigger picture and actually have the freedom of mind to think it over. I think that is where the race drivers step aside. They have a lot more to think about: the next race, the championship, media, the pressure to perform. Test drivers usually do have that freedom, but are not always technically educated.

Is it Michaels fault that Damon ran into him?

Jaques clearly had the faster car of the two you nit. Michael knew that if Jaques got by then it was all over. Thats the truth in the real world not your Michael bashing bs.

In 2003 the car was no where near as competitive as the 2002 or the 2004 car so Michael had to push harder. Im sure if he had the tyre advantage that the Michelin runners had then it would have been a different story.

The car was not fantastic at the start of 2006. The Renault was fantastic. The car suffered from slight understeer and tyre graining.
It wasn't untill the US gp where Ferrari where able to dial out these problems.

I like you to point out to me where the 6 mistakes where from Michael in the hungary gp? The only mistake he made was being a racer on shit tyres which is more then you can say for most f1 drivers. Most would have gone for the drys and got a handful of point. Not him.


In 2005 Michael embarrased Rubens. His points percentage has nothing to do with it. In equally bad cars Michael was the faster of the two.
Rubens was far from robbed in US. Michael had the line and rubens locked up. His fault not Michaels.

And the Chinese was miserable. But its good to know that a team is human when it spends 5 straight years dominating f1. 1 race is not worth 5 consecutive world titles or 6 wcc's.

The difference is, the percentages never mattered. Michael was overall better then Rubens and that was why he was number 1.


Or do you want to bs on some more?

Basically you always find excuses for MS or blaming his team, car, tyres, and whatever else or just evading the real matters.

For Hungary-2006:

1. MS hit Fisico and ruined his front wing. He then ran all lap without it on course to the unscheduled pit stop. Therefore he lost a lot of places.

2. MS spun while hitting Coulthard immediately after restart from the Safety Car which was a second massive benefit for MS after Alonso`s mechanical failure and subsequent DNF.
Therefore MS let pass the whole pack and then spent a lot of time to gain back places.

3. MS stupidly refused to change tyres despite numerous requests from his team.

4. MS did not let Pedro pass to conserve his rapidly fading tyres to finish the race in points.

5. MS missed chicanes numerous times, hitting the curbs and damaging his suspension while trying to keep Pedro at bay.
6. MS did not let Nick pass to save his final chance to finish the race in strong points and instead continued to destroy his tyres and suspension through the curbs jumping.

7. MS hit Nick`s car while the latter was making his move and finally terminated his front suspension as a result.

Oh, it is not 6, it is 7.

And after that utterly miserable race MS got the point after debutant Kubuca was diqualified.

Without all those stupidities MS could have easily be second or even won the race as he was fastest in the drying out period on wet tyres and amateurish Massa was fastest on dry tyres in the same car.

Jeez, it's like an infant school playground.

How about addressing the OP instead of just rehashing old, tired, pointless arguments?

I think the mechanic background of michael shows again. He defenitly has been the one driver with the most technical understanding of the car in F1 as far as i know.

He was even more into the details then Senna, he basicly perfected it.

Are you an idiot?
Your last point contradicts the rest of your post..........

And Michaels suspension failed when he hit the curbs and not Nicks car.

Show me evidence of the team telling Michael to come in. MS didn't let Pedro passed because he is a racer. He was fighting for position. As he said, he never would have won races if he was not ruthless. Thats what seperates him from the mid order pack like Massa and Heidfield.
They would take the safe option and wuss out.
Michael was in no way in contention for the win and anybody with half a brain could see this.

I think it's not so much about who did it "better", but Dudots words highlight their different approaches and personalities: MS more the team player, Senna more single minded.

Now of course on this board we can't get away without "my driver was better than yours" ;)

Nope immidiately after the contact.



It was MS sole decision to stay out. He accepted that. If you are interested you may check.



As was Ide, de Cesaris and is Massa in the same race, China-06, Imola-05, Australia-08 and myriads more, Coulthard and so on. It was a very stupid race from Michael as being racer does mean having some bit of brain active and that was not the case for MS in Hungary-2006.



If you remove all unnecessary activities by MS in the race I mentioned above you would see he would have been in contention.

Thanks for posting the article.... but being you, a die hard Schumacher fan... (I like Michael a lot more since his retirement since he seems less arrogant and more genuine friendly) you posted the nice things about Schumacher...

Here are other interesting things mentioned in that article:
---
"Johnny Herbert said that when he raced with Schumacher at Benetton in 1995, he was frustrated to find that starting with the second race he could not consult Schumacher's data, whereas Schumacher could see his. "You look at each other's, and you can see where you're better and where your worse," he said. "And I never saw that, and that lasted three or maybe four races. It came back later, but the damage was already done to me." He said that was more the team's fault than that of Schumacher, whom he respects."
---
"Nigel Roebuck, a journalist at Autosport magazine, called Senna and Schumacher "absolute autocrats."
"Schumacher has never had a superstar in the other car," he said. "Senna and Prost suffered for it, too, but at least they had the confidence to say 'Well, I don't care who you put in the other car, I'll beat him.'""
---

Allthough Herbert blames the team... it cannot be that this situation happened randomly. I dont believe for a second that Briatore because he simply wants MS as number one said: number two you cannot see number one's data. It must have been demanded by MS.

So yes MS is a champion and one to be respected for his great achievements. He is not only a fast driver but excelled in creating an environment for himself (amongst other by disabling his teammates and their environment) so he had calmness needed for focus on winning races.

Anyway... his major weakness in racing: as Roebuck said.... MS never said to his teams: 'Well, I don't care who you put in the other car, I'll beat him.'

Thats half of it....Rather than weakness this is a strength.

Marchi, I just checked 03 results and there is not a single race where Rubens finished directly behind Michael which indicates no team orders and so your claim remains unsubstantiated.

What Prost could do ia a Ferrari? We have seen that in 90/91. He missed out narrowly on the 91 title.

That was much weaker and more than much less organized team in 1990/1991 at Ferrari.

That is why Luca di had to spend so much time to rebuild it.

From 1993 onwards it really started when Jean Todt took over the team running.

But my quote was about different things. Alain and Damon were best in business of setting up, testing and developing f1 cars.

If average Eddie could show some things to MS, I wonder what those two guys would offer?

I read on a different side today that Ferrari want Michael testing because they are not getting ahead with Räikkönen's testing. Is this true?

Honestly, are you taking this comment by Roebuck seriously?

Because:



I seriously wonder where Roebuck was when Senna declined to race alongside Warwick or when Prost suddenly retired despite a valid contract after Williams named Senna as his team mate in 1994. Any suggestions?

can you prove those numerous requests?

Ferrari mechanics twice got ready in the pit area for MS. But he never came. Reference on other similar situations when teams try to fool each other is irrelevant to that case.

Now I can`t find the related quote but taking into consideration Massa opted for dry tyres and went fastest of all brings pure logic on the fact it was sole MS decision to stay out on faded inters and resist to much quicker drivers.

So you have no evidence to back up your statement so your relying on BS.

Not only are you wrong but you complete lack of knowledge of basic f1, like the fact that IDE had his super license revoked after Imola is comical.



at glorius&victorius The difference between he and Senna was the fact that Michael never ran away from a fight. Senna hopped from team to team that could win him championships. Michael had the team and left to build another.
That is why Senna is not in the same class as Schumacher in overall skill.

"The difference between he and Senna was the fact that Michael never ran away from a fight. Senna hopped from team to team that could win him championships. Michael had the team and left to build another.
That is why Senna is not in the same class as Schumacher in overall skill."

Couldn't you say that those two different approaches to a driving career are equally valid? I don't see how choosing to change teams makes Senna less skilled than Schumacher.

Surely, in reference to the original post, Bernard Dudot is in a better position to commentate on the relative contributions of both Senna and Schumacher than the majority of us humble posters to ATLAS/autosport...
There are not too many people who have worked with both masters of the art of Grand Prix driving, so his opinion counts for quite a bit in my book at least.
Regarding this discussion, in Schumacher`s defence, I think it should be noted that there were many "knee jerk" regulation changes, during his era as a driver, just to stem the dominance of both his team and himself.
I admire both drivers for their own unique impact on Grand Prix racing whether good or bad, but one can only dream of having my no.1 hero Jim Clark mixing it up with them both in cars with modern reliability and safety. Conversely, put all three in Lotus 25s and see how it all pans out.... the stuff of dreams!

Bold text

Watch the race agin for a case although it seems to be useless.

Besides if the team pulled whole pit crew twice for the pit stop while ordered his driver to stay out and fight on the faded tyres when everyone was on dry tyres and miles faster, this team proved to be as stupid as its driver.

Sure those guys covered MS ass afterwards in the press release but it was clear that MS decided for himself.

Forget about Ide, I knew when and how he was ejected from f1, it was just an example, I can give you more names or brain fades occasions along with total lack of racecraft or accuracy which have nothing to do with being a true racer on the spot.

Surely you don't want to say Ross Brawn lied afterwards?

Ross Brawn about Hungary 2006:



Check your facts the next time, will you?

I would say that Mark Donahue, mechanical engineering degree and all, was the one driver with the most technical understand of the car in F1.

Absolutely right. Those that are expressing their opinions are a tiny majority of our number.

Or Jack Brabham...

It is called ass backing which is normal.

that's not proof he was called in, it's proof they considered it an option.
you have ross telling how it happened. that's testimony so proof. but you disregard it as it doesn't suit your scenario.

If my memory serves me right, Ross said that he regreted didn't call MS to change his tyres because FM's dry tyres were faster (sorry I don't want to search the link). MS always said that he trusted Ross blindly, what ever Ross told him to do, he would do it without question.

And by the way, why you anly quoted EI, while not too long ago at the end of 2006 season, Luca Baldisseri and Nigel Stepney wanted Micahel to test the new car? They might have reasons to say so.

These Alonso fans

Let alone MS, for any driver decision like this does not happen without taking into consideration drivers feedback.

And if you say so, what was the leadership of Michael at Ferrari? He counted on others.

Alonso always takes final decisions in these cases. The team can propose and advise, but Fernando decides it in the end.

By the way Ross took blame for the wrong tyre choice in Australia nad Canada 2006. And if MS "blindly" trusted him so that just backs Eddie`s comments.



Because EI remarks are credible and detailed and he was free to speak when he put them on paper.

He praised MS as excellent driver in almost every page but gently pointed out that MS did not excelled in everything.

You have no idea what Alonso has a say in. You've been shut down and now just claiming crap that you have no idea bout.

Its Alonso fans like you that remind of how much of a tool head he can be.

Be fair, a man can't choose his fans.