It's so obvous it hurts.

If that was Schumacher's only contribution to Ferrari's success he has already done enough. His a clever man and unlike some other drivers (see Alonso's 6 tenth comment) and many, many fans he doesn't think a driver can single-handedly make a team or a car great or that it has to be credited to him alone when the car improves. He knows he needs good people around him. Everybody does, but Michael also acknowledges that.

Had he not convinced Ferrari to take Brawn his career might have gone differently. But also Brawn's. Just like Schumacher's reputation was boosted by Ross' great strategies, Ross' reputation was also boosted by Michael making the most of his strategies.

Senna fans seem to have a problem with Schumacher's statistics more than anything else...
Why is it so painful for you? Senna was a great driver anyway.




I have always agreed that with the 2002 and 2004 Ferraris many drivers could have done the same as what Michael done. Button is proving that now. However Schumacher's career was so much more than that. To me those were almost his least significant achievements. In those years he was only harvesting the fruits of a hard and long work. The most impressive part in his career was always when he didn't have the best car, when he had to add something extra to Ross' strategies to make them work. That's what made Michael special. And that's where the likes of Button are still far, far away from having proven that they are in the same league. Jenson can win in the best car, great. I am happy for him. But that's all so far.

Edited to add: I also think Jean Todt is given too little credit here. People forget that Brawn's role at Benetton and Ferrari wasn't what it is at BrawnGP. At Ferrari Jean Todt was the team boss and one could argue that he has won everything - from rallying to sportscars and F1 - as a team chief. That should tell us something about his role in Ferrari's success. Who knows what Ross has learnt from him and how much he took from Todt's methods to BrawnGP... The same way Ross once mentioned last year how he told Button about Schumacher's methods and to learn from them. (The same way, once Pat Symonds said that he learnt his attention for details from Schumacher! He is making good use of it until now!) It's never good to put one man on a pedestal at the cost of others. They all learn from each other and teach each other.

I think that's because it's too obvious for anybody who knows your history here where you are coming from with this thread....

I think 1996 is brought up because that's the only example where MS and Brawn weren't in the same team, while both still being in F1. The point is not if MS won the title that year or not, the point is that on the only occasion when they were racing against each other in different teams it was MS who beat Brawn, despite of Benetton being the stronger team just a year before.

Its quite funny to watch your inept attempts to talk away your very obvious fixations.

When its okay for you to bring Senna into this thread why do you complain about others doing the same? After you of all people did it first?!? Nothing else but another testament for your double standards.

Ferrari, erm, Schumacher won Spain. Belgium. Italy. Sorry... what did Brawn win in 1996? Zilch.

1996 clearly displayed how Brawn's former superteam Benetton ceased to be winners after removing one single item: Schumacher. You can try to talk that away as long as you wish; it won't disappear.

Yes i can remember that neither Jean nor Gerhard Berger could understand how Michael could have driven the 1995 car like he did after they tested with it.

Schumacher could have have been champion in any of the top three cars for most of his career IMO.

The years where Ross was instrumental in the team making a great car and executing great strategies any of the top 10 drivers could have been champion IMO.

Its hard to pick cos they were both excellent at what they did. Combined they were stunning though.

How many races has Ross Brawn won..........

Well, apart from that this is probably* the dumbest, most idiotic and imbecile question ever raised in this forum...











... well ... it's just that. The dumbest, most idiotic and imbecile question.



*: "Hungary 1998 revisited" is still in contest for the title. Sore losers unite!

OK, then...
We came to a brilliant conclusion that Brawn can't drive and Schumy can't think.
The board is raising the Bar day after day.

I had concluded that the most important contributor to the success of any team is the steering wheel - remove it and see what happens to a race-winning car! Then I realised that actually it's the wheel-nut.

Well I see that many people put down BAR around here actually..........

How many races did any team win with Alesi or Berger? Alesi won a single race his entire career and it was a gift, and Berger won a handful. It is obvious I think that MS and Brawn/burne missed each other...Why else would MS WANT them at Ferrari if it did not make it better. We can put it another way, Brawn will most likely win the WDC this year without MS while MS never won a WDC without Brawn. I think Button is a better driver than either Alesi or Berger (although Berger on his day could be very fast eg Germany 1997).


No one is trying to make the claim that Ross could make a average driver a WDC, but certainly he was huge part of MS's success at Ferrari.
That said, Like I said before, I think it is unfair to try and parse out who was most responsible for MS's and Ferrar/Benneton's success as they clearly all contributed.

Clearly Sarcasm is lost on you

I don't think anyone will disagree with what you have stated. Most of the people posting here are just pointing out the absurdity of the OP in this thread(in making an obviously silly comparison) by doing the same.

I like your examples not only about Jean Todt, which is undisputed (even if I did not mention it duly) but about Pat Symonds as well. Here it is also quite obvious, and one can say that even the success of Fernando Alonso is helped by what Pat Symonds (who really impresses me) has learned in his Schumi/Brawn/Byrne years.

What I still find amusing is that you guys, including now Galko877 go on beating me for being a Senna fan. Because it is irrelevant for that thread.
Although I rate Ayrton higher than Schumi I have stated already several times that to me it has been option number 3, "both made each other". In fact, before this poll there was already another poll which presented just the options Schumacher or Brawn being the one. That's why I started this poll putting in a third and a fourth option, because I found it simply unrealistic to reduce the question to either "only Schumi" or "only Brawn".

And, lo and behold, the polls results with currently 37% for "Schumi and Brawn made each other" support the fact that the majority here thinks that you can't see either of the two in isolation. I have put my vote under option 3 as well.

Having said that, you have gathered from my comments that I still lean slightly more towards Ross. Why? Because in 2009 Brawn demonstrates total domination without Schumi (with Jenson instead, I am doubtful if he could demonstrate the same thing with Rubens alone...), whereas Schumi has never demonstrated total domination without Ross (also not in 1996). This speaks a clear language for me, also given the fact where the Honda team was pre-Brawn. You'll have to give Ross strong credit for that.

I am realistic about the fact that you guys will just go on attacking me for being a Senna fan, but what the heck? I can also have my opinions on other issues in motorsport (if you look at my profile you will see quite a list of drivers I sincerely liked/like) and yes, these opinions are not influenced by any Senna versus Schumi comparison. Do not make conclusions about me based on how your own psychology works.

Thank you for your very personal observations.

This is how I mentioned Senna in post 28:

"Thanks for the link, Schumacher is one of the great rain drivers of all time. Indeed, there have been a number of others (not least Senna) pulling off similar stellar rain performances."

It simply stated that apart from Schumacher there were other great rain drivers before him, so the fact that Michael was brilliant in the rain did nothing with regards to the Schumi / Brawn question. It is common knowledge that before Schumi Senna was THE rain driver, and I was just stating that. So no fan-boyism regarding Senna in here, as you would like to imply.

Maybe what enraged you so much is that I did not call Michael THE greatest rain driver of all times and put Senna on a level with him.....

Not at all, it wasn't a reply meant to You.

Nor Brawn nor Schumacher.
MS proved to be a winner in two different occasions w/ Benetton and Ferrari.
Brawn also proved to be a winner in three different events at Benetton, Ferrari and the hopeless Honda-Brawn.
So none of them depended each other, given that a professional w/ similar performance would allow Brawn or Schumy to win, anyway.

But me thinks that Brawns task was much more difficult given that he had to unite lots and lots of ellements to make a F1 team win a race.
Brawn or Barnard.
Schumy or Button.
They are equivalent... which destroys the theory that Schumy is unique and uber allez.

Brawn won races at Benetton with Piquet before his partnership w/ Schumy.
Schumy has learnd about F1 from Brawn, at Benetton.
And Schumy used the knowledge gathered from Benetton to succed in Ferrari.

Schumy's knowledge of F1 is tied down to Brawn as a student [passive], while Brawn, the Master doesn't depend on MS to win, like he has proven with Piquet, Barric and Button.

What is this thread about? Shumi fanboys being defensive ?..
I think most would agree that without a top car a driver is simply overlooked. Button can accomplish very easily what Shumacher did if he benefits from having the absolute best car in the next 4-5 years. I don't know if its all about Brawn either, Renault won without him and Ferrari and Mclaren/Williams all have produced WDC cars.. I am also not saying any driver would dominate, but any "good" driver will.

How can MS be a student of Brawn when they have different professions. ???
Do you actually think Brawn thaught MS how to drive an F1 car and fast?...

Stupid question .... So a model cannot learn from a photographer??? ......

Ok, whatever man.

Without Brawn, Schumi would not even have 3 titles at all, not even 2 maybe, so start being real get rid of that red-glasses and take a big breath. Truth hurts.

Of course, Brawn was teaching him the technical limits of the car and what movements he should do to keep it on the track and make it faster.

According to you Rob Smedley as a test engineer haven't taught nothing to Massa as a driver.
How do you explain Massa's improvement after Sauber's faillure and Ferrari testing year?
Why Massa asked Smedley to be promoted Race Engineer?
Different professions can deal with same activities, working on the interface.

Umm Piquet was 3 time world champion and one of F1's most successful drivers before Brawn - this thread is going crazy, people trying their hardest to dismiss Schumachers driving ability.

Every driver, thats EVERY driver, along with engineers and appropriate people download telemetry and study whats happening with the driver and the car and comparisons made to what is possible then drivers are taught (for want of a better word) what they should do to maximise the potential of the car. Some drivers have a good understanding and can perform or modify their style fast to get that result and some cant - these are often the great drivers who get to F1 and fall fast.

Dude, where have you been.. enough ass kissing.. Is Brawn the only successful paddock brain out there or what?
Shumi could have easily won in the 1999/98 mclaren.. or the 96/97 williams..

you guys are ****ing clueless.. are you now saying that Jenson is winningand driving better because Brawn is teaching him how to drive..? Brawn just provides the car - you replace Jenson with Kimi/Massa/Lewis, who have never work with Ross and they would be winning week after week ..

no point in arguing with Frans!
He hates Schumi like Bin-laden hating America
No matter what you say he have some ridiculous points.
He was one who started and trolled over one point that schumi was talking in that video in the "Schumi sabotages Kimi's car" thread
No use mate, just ignore his flame bates!

Pure gold.

Uhmmm... I think I hit a nerve here...

Barramut, I don't like MS but what you said about Brawn teaching MS how to be faster is simply ridiculous.

I think you fdon't know the difference between trainning and education.

No its not, as I said and its not an opinion, all engineers and drivers get together to study the telemetry see where improvements can be made - nothing has made drivers faster in the last 20+ years than telemetry that show the facts about what a driver is really doing out there or what his physical inputs are doing to the car.

...or the 1994 Benneton that Jos Verstappen drove - oh hang on, he did! Wow he won almost every race Frans and the WDC in the same car as Jos with Brawn's guidance!!

ok.. but what I am saying is that the Ferrari was a winning car a las Williams 96/97. You put Button on that car (01-04) and he sure would have won too... What does this have to do with Brawn teaching MS how to be fast. ? Its garbage argument. Every driver works with his engineer to get the most out of a car..

ok.. so.. what's your point?

You saw me implying Senna fanboyism in my post? Another one of your observation troubles, I am afraid: I was clearly talking about your double standards. No talk about fanboyism in my post at all.

And I don't care at all whom you call the greatest rain driver of all times, let alone being enraged about anything you say.

Its not just one single item, it was about all car settings development around Schumy and his happy tail style, for years in a row.
Berger couldn't cope with that kind of setting and they had to do it all over again, but at that point all other teams have raised the bar [Williams + McLaren] and Benetton was not competitive any longer, with or without Schumacher.

Furthermore Gia, you can't say how much MS has learnd from Piquet, Brawn, Byrne, Barnard @ Benetton, how much from it was carryover on his career.
Unless you say MS was born ready or MS learnd nothing bcs he was dumb like a door.

So inevitably, MS' success is Brawn success too, the inverse [Benetton before MS and BrawnGP w/o MS] is not valid.

Well, Schumacher was superfast in his very first Grand Prix outing at Jordan, which happened before he met the mentioned Piquet, Brawn, Byrne, Barnard at Benetton. So the only valid conclusion is that he was ready when he entered Formula One, and before he had contact with Brawn.

that wasn't me.

Just reminding Frans using your post as a base

and since then not a single lesson learndt.

Thats just utter bullshit and is just an excuse to show why the team went backwards when MS left.

Sure the Williams was a class act (with the same engine as the Benetton) but the 3 rows behind were usually a mix of the 2 Benettons, the 2 Ferraris and the 2 McLarens depending on the track. Suprising how often the Jordan is there as well.

Its amusing to see the similar grid positions in 1994 were similar with MS often in front of Berger and Alesi - just the car brands had changed.

The race laps times also verify the Benettons capabilities in '96.

But you Guys keep posting opinion and I'll keep posting fact, quite easy actually because its all out there and recorded.

Oh i like this site for historic grid positions with the lap time by the way, just click on 1996 for example

http://www.allf1.info/teams/osella.php - click on site map on the left and click on grids.

got it.

Ok it was me that was slow on the uptake then