and since then not a single lesson learndt.

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.

Which leads us to the conclusion he did not learn from Brawn, is that your point?

Barramuts theory of team bosses teaching their drivers the technical limits of the cars and what movements they should do to keep it on the track and make it faster... pure comedy gold. Just awsome.

Telemetry helps the driver so much and the engineer is the one that will help the driver to interpret what is going on.

[...]

A well known proof is Schumacher forbiding his team mate to have access to his car data, since Johnny Herbert @ Benetton.

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.

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.

Schumacher forbid his team mate to have access to his car data. Right.

But he did not forbid his team mate to have access to the race engineer, right?

Which leads us to the conclusion that Schumacher learned and improved from his very own car data [telemetry] and not from Brawn. Right.

The performance of Benetton in 1995 means absolutely nothing to the 1996 car. Herbert even won 2 races in the 1995 Benetton and he was a test-driver#2 treated like a leper by the team. The 1996 Ferrari was better than the 1996 Benetton, that much is clear from comparing Irvine to the Benetton drivers. Schuamcher lovers should watch "A Year in the Fast Lane with Benetton" tv series, it documented their entire 1996 season and shows they spent their money on there 1995 car. It's also the first time they have adjusted to running the team as 2 drivers again with Berger and Alesi equal. In the Suzuka episode Pat Symonds says that Schumacher would not have won a race on merit driving the 1996 Benetton.

So when Lewis, Alonso and kimi won their titles it was because they were told by their engineers how to drive faster and that's how they edged their cometition but not because perhaps they had the best/equal best car on the grid.

.

Very interesting thoughts here, cheapracer.

This is exactly what Ross Brawn tries to convey to his drivers: how to change their driving styles to better suit particular tracks or conditions.
Look no further than Barcelona 2009 and Monaco 2009 when Jenson Button openly declared that he started to drive with a different driving style to better suit the track at hand.

Why has he not done so in the eight years before? In his ninth year in F1 this is a revelation Jenson likes to share with the public.

Who do you think gave him the inspiration to do so?

Why now, in 2009, why not already in 2008?
Because, in 2008 Ross had to pull much more loose strings together to get the car even perform on the level it is in 2009.
But now, with given car, further optimization has to come clearly also from the driver. That's why Jenson suddenly talks about adapting his driving style, after so many years in F1. So Ross is not only a good manager, putting the right people into the right places, a good motivator, a good spotter of talent, but he is also in very real terms playing the role of a coach for the driver, even if these activities of Ross are not visible to the public eye.

This thread, by the way, is not going crazy. It is just digging deeper to find out more aspects of Ross' and Michael's talent and achievements.

No teammate of Schumacher ever was allowed to see his data, while Michael always had access to his slave drivers data...... It's a well known fact, ..... It's not cheating, it's just not very netjes, and a sign of weakness in my eyes.

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.

Which leads us to the conclusion that Schumacher learned and improved from his very own car data [telemetry] and not from Brawn. Right.

The performance of Benetton in 1995 means absolutely nothing to the 1996 car. Herbert even won 2 races in the 1995 Benetton and he was a test-driver#2 treated like a leper by the team. The 1996 Ferrari was better than the 1996 Benetton, that much is clear from comparing Irvine to the Benetton drivers. Schuamcher lovers should watch "A Year in the Fast Lane with Benetton" tv series, it documented their entire 1996 season and shows they spent their money on there 1995 car. It's also the first time they have adjusted to running the team as 2 drivers again with Berger and Alesi equal. In the Suzuka episode Pat Symonds says that Schumacher would not have won a race on merit driving the 1996 Benetton.

No teammate of Schumacher ever was allowed to see his data, while Michael always had access to his slave drivers data...... It's a well known fact, ..... It's not cheating, it's just not very netjes, and a sign of weakness in my eyes.

And I thought this thread was exhausted on the first page...

I have no arguments against your point only that Brawn didn't create Schumacher's talent, that appears to be special along with a handful of other GP drivers - but by all means a great engineer can certainly hone talent and adapt it to the specific car if the driver is responsive.

Button either had engineers that couln't see or communicate effectively with him and Brawn can or, both the car and slicks are more suited to him - possibly a combination of all 3. These Guys are so fast and close to each other that just a small edge makes a huge difference in results let alone possibly 2 or 3 edges.

No, you are not being attacked for being a Senna fan. You are being attacked for comments like, for example, the one when you compared Michael's and Ross' achievements on the pitwall. It's about as fair as comparing them in the car. I'd like to see Ross there... Comments like that are so unfair that I cannot think of anything else than that you have an agenda with this topic.

Just supposing that was true which of course is very doubtful

doubtfull? .... I would ask Rubens, Irvine, Lehto, Herbert or EVEN Verstappen (who openly has already stated on several occasions that the 2nd Benneton was very differetn than Michaels, something Senna also suspected in the first races of 1994.... yes, one with and one without traction and launch control.) Now bite it.

None of those teammates will say; "of sure I could use Michaels telemetry"... none of them at all can say that ...

So take your "doubtfull" where the light don't shines...

show me proof of what you siad about the 2nd drivers' comment
plz dont invent things to throw dust in others eyes!

doubtfull? .... I would ask Rubens, Irvine, Lehto, Herbert or EVEN Verstappen
None of those teammates will say; "of sure I could use Michaels telemetry"... none of them at all can say that ...

[bull]
Its useless to show or demonstrate any evidence to you

OMG, Button drove crap cars before with the exception of 2004. Now his car is the best in the grid and that is why he is WDC candidate. It has very little to do with Ross teaching Jenson - what is more important is the different cars he's driven. Do you understand this or not?

I agree with Gilles.

sreevishnu, check your PM. it's in there.

doubtfull? .... something Senna also suspected in the first races of 1994.... yes, one with and one without traction and launch control.) Now bite it.

Umm are you responding to my post?

Would you care to correlate your post with mine if you are?

1994

race 1 Senna gets the jump at the start and also Alesi passes MS as for 2nd.

race 2 Senna was a bit slow and MS got the lead and the pack moved forward in unison with MS except for Senna.

race 3 Senna into the lead from MS

Wheres the launch control of MS then??

Some of around here post facts and some post other.

I may have gotten confused. But wasn't you who said Jenson suddenly became better because he is under Brawn's driving school or something similar?

you forgot one thing.
race 4 in Imola after Senna's crash........ MS was overtaken by Alesi for the lead during a standing start!

And for record i was asking proof for this words from you!

"I think that only started because in Brazil I qualified fourth, just behind him. We went straight to Argentina and it all started there. He came up to me and said: 'This thing of the data. There's probably things that you do special which you don't want me to see, and there's things I do that I don't want you to see, so has Ross [Brawn] spoken to you about changing it?

"I understand it from Michael's point of view. I think what he does is how a racing driver needs to be - very selfish. He doesn't give the other guy a chance to get close to him.

"But Flavio should have told him it was a team effort. My engineer would sometimes call up his data and I'd be looking at it out of the corner of my eye while he was on the other side of the desk. Pathetic really. But he never left the room. Even if you stayed there till 9.30 at night he'd still be there. Later on in the season I could see the data but by then I wasn't a threat."

sure, I'll give them a call and postit on youtube, good enough?

"[...]so has Ross [Brawn] spoken to you about changing it?[...]
- Johhny Herbert

- Johhny Herbert, quoted from his official website www.johnnyherbert.co.uk

so Herbert wanted to steel MS's setup! Now thats pathetic.
Same as Lewis and Alonso ....once Alonso stopped supplying setup Lewis cracked!
Same as Rubens and Button.
Good work from MS and Alonso.....no wonder they are successful...unlike Rubens.

Schumacher was allowed to look at Herberts telemetry, Herbery wasn't allowed to look at his. That is pathetic but typical of the way Schumacher operated.

That Herbert data talks is just silly. Herbert was no match for Schumacher in late 94 when he had data access, he was no match in early 95 when he had no data access, and he was no match in late 95 when he had data access again.

So the constant factor is Herbert being no match for Schumacher, no matter about having Schumacher data access or not.

With all due respect, the most obvious choice was not listed on this poll. That choice is Ferrari.

That's right, it's Ferrari that made both these guys successful.

A team with over 500 employees having to depend on 1 individual for its' success? Yeah right.

Woulda shoulda coulda...

Go ask. Until then it's bull, or nicely put: doubtful.

So, apart from the credible source being the very Johnny Herbert...