This post is stupid. My opinion that both Schumacher and Prost were better overall racing drivers than Senna does not mean that Senna sucked, a thing that I never said or suggested.

Concerning evidence: The results support my point of view.

Well the results of the 2009 season so far also support the view that Brawn doesn't need MS to achieve domination, he's doing just fine with another driver.

So if results are the beginning and end of it, I presume you voted option 1 in the poll?

the fact that Brawn doesn't need MS doesn't contradict the point of view that MS didn't need Brawn to achieve his results.

Another stupid post containing weird and desperate logic. The 2009 results don't tell us anything about Schumachers potential with or without Brawn. Remember, Schumacher retired back in 2006.

However, the 1996 results clearly displayed who was a winner without the other.

And what about Benneton in 1989, 1990 where they won 3 races without MS? BTW, the evidence supports that Brawn can dominate without MS...it says nothing about Brawn's ability lead a team that dominates AGAINST MS which would require MS still be racing. Fact is that Brawn may have been calling the shots for 2 of the most succesful WDC runs in F1 history with 2 different drivers (one of whom, while regarded by some had won 1 race ever) at 2 different teams, one of which is using customer engines, has 1/3 the budget of the more well funded teams and a team that was not even sure they would start in Melborne as late as Jan.

Given that evidence (since you put a premium on that), surely you have to give some credit to Ross.

Compare 2009: No Schumacher around, no relevance concerning Schumachers potential with or without Brawn.


I give Brawn all credit in the world for the job he does.

But: That he continued to be competitive after Schumachers retirement does not prove that Schumachers career was relying on Brawn; Chapman remained a winner after Clarks death, and Dennis remained a winner after Sennas farewell. A very normal and unspectacular thing.

Exellent summary of the thread and the opener.



Too bad Ron Dennis makes Ayrton look like clueless truck driver considering how much more WDCs Ron got.

So '96 proves that MS was a winner without Brawn, but 2009 is irrelevant?

Talk about desperation and weird logic...

I truly think that MS would have become a great regardless of Brawn (and the other way round), but seeing you virtually jump up and down to protect
the myth of your favourite driver is so funny...

Keep it going!

In 1996 Schumacher competed against the team of Brawn, Benetton was arguably a better car and reigning WC team while Ferrari'96 was a self-destructing dog of a car. Yet Schumacher won 3 times and Benetton went from.. hmm 11 wins (?) to 0.

In 2009 Schumacher is 3 years retired pensioner and isn't competing with Brawn.

That's the difference. 1996 is relevant, 2009 is not.

Because you say so?

The question was never what they achieved against eachother but how much they could achieve on their own. Try and spot the difference.

Both proved that they can win without the other. Both proved that when working together they could dominate the competition. Those are the facts.

Now Brawn is in the process of proving that he can not only win but also dominate without MS. MS has no chance anymore to prove that too. He may have been able or he may have not, it's anybodys guess.

If those simple observations are too hard to swallow for some Schufosis, well, tough luck.

Brawn is in process, Schumacher has proven he is an achiever without Brawn, spot the difference and get off your high horse, acquire civil discussion manners (no "schufosis") and then we can talk.

but can he win with Button in a car that is not dominant? Schumacher was able to win a car, not dominant and without Ross Brawn.

Well, I'm not imposing discussion rules on other posters, so much for civil manners. I wasn't aware that Schufosi counts as an insult, but if you say so...

How has MS without Brawn proven more than Brawn withouth MS? Both won the odd race without the other, nothing more nothing less. Then together they became a dominant force. And now Brawn is a dominant force again with another driver - MS was never a dominant force without Brawn. Now I'm well aware that the last statement doesn't mean MS couldn't have become dominant without Brawn. It's just that it never happened, for different reasons.

I really don't know how to phrase it any simpler.

I understand your point of view. But MS WAS a dominant force without Brawn, very much so. Moreover that year was the only year we could compare not only how they did without each other but also how they'd do against each other and MS did do MUUUCH better. The rest is speculations. I'd wager this year is an abberation thanks to unclarified diffusor rules, lack of in-season testing and 2008 compain going down the wire between McLaren and Ferrari. Let's see what Brawn can do in coming years, besides it may be too early to jump to conclusions, for all we know Mercedes engines can start blowing up left right and center in the second half of the championship.

I never disputed that MS could win races in a non-dominant car, that would be stupid. So no argument from me over that point.

In the end it comes down to how much of the Ferrari domination of 2000-2004 one attributes to MS and how much to the team (specifically Brawn).
In light of what happens this years that's not an unreasonable question, although for some people it apparently borders on heresy to even think about it.

which races did Ross Brawn win without a dominant car?

This is why I don't think any fair comparison could be made until Brawn wins in a not dominant car.

he didn't last year....

This debate is stupid. Brawn does not design cars hes just a manager, so his direct influence on performance is VERY low. At Ferrari he relied on Byrne and Schumacher and at Honda he replied on having a 1 year head start on a drastic rule change design.

Not exactly true. Brawn does have engineering credentials, and I know a pretty high up jurno/racer, who frequented paddocks, who is of firm opinion that Byrne is pretty much very talanted implementator and the guy to perfect an idea but not what he's hyped to be, but it Ross who's actually a very bright designer in his own rights. He isn't surprised that Brawn has such a nice car this year. It'd be very interesting to see how Brawn compares with other teams next year....

Depends a bit what you define as domination or specifically for this argument, comparable superiority to the RB1 in 2009.

I would not describe the 1998 and 1999 Ferraris as dominant in that sense. Yet Irvine and Salo won in "Brawns car" during
that period. A case could also be made for Herberts victories in 1995.

Schumacher only proved in 1996 that he won three GP´s and did not dominate.
Brawn dominates.

Spot the difference.

Which is exactly the meaning of this thread from the beginning. There is no better summary than the above, yet certain people just get freaked about it.

And they do get personal about it and attack the OP, something that is not allowed by the rules of the BB. Well, maybe they have learned from their hero Schumi how also was often inclined to bend the rules in his favour...

At this point, that is the most relevant question for me as well.

1996;

MS - 1st year with new team, car reconised to be uncompetitive, 3 wins
Brawn - 6th year with team, coming off 2 WDC's with MS, 0 wins

Spot the difference.

He won with a shitty car, which was no where faster than front 2 teams
He was in a 3rd best car.

Go get a life mate, go out and see some girls/boys etc.... so that you will forget Schmuy for good.
Its been almost a decade that you talk about these stupid things
I know u are bitter as Schumy beaten all your great F1 gods, its ok in time you can forget
bye bye

Mindboggling logic...

I can do better:

It's 2005. Brawn and MS, together coming off 10 (9?) straight titles...

I think we nailed it now, they're both crap at their job.

About right, let's hold it there for a second. I'd also estimate 3rd best car overall, which on certain tracks and/or through brilliant tactics
applied by... what's his name again? was able to challenge the other frontrunners.

Sometimes when MS supporters talk about '96 the impression is created that the F310 must have been the equivalent of a 2009 Force India...

Well, there is no way you will want to understand.

Brawn dominates in 2009 in a much clearer way than Schumi has dominated in 1996.

And there is a greater percentage in this poll attesting Brawn is better than Schumi (33,68%) than Schumi (a steady 21,18%), while 37,85 attest that both contributed to each others greatness, including myself.

Perhaps this is what you don´t want to realize.

What a doofus comment, If you get ur facts right there was no Brawn at Ferrari in 1996

Yeah, keep the insults coming.

Where did I mention Brawn? I have no idea who was responsible in '96, hence the question what was his name.

Thanks for your helpful contribution.

lol........where did i insult you personally, doofus comment means stupid comment.....which you made yourself by indicating it was Brawns tactics which won him those race in 1996. Common we all know you screwed it up.

From this comment everyone knows you are talking about Brawn!
Atleast i expected some integrity.

I bow to Lord Vishnu, and I wonder if you are aware of the meaning of your BB name, Sree Vishnu.
Please don´t get personal, it is not in line with the BB.

Schumi was helped throughout his career, he was lucky enough and capable enough to always have the right people around him.
In 1996 he did worse than in his years with Ross Brawn at Ferrari. Not the least in terms of technical reliability, which is exactly one of the points that I have stated.

Already in 2002 it was clear to me that Schumacher was very lucky to have Byrne and Brawn behind him, so I raised the question, albeit provocative, yet justified, is "Schumacher a zero without Byrne and Brawn?".

My own answer by the way: Schumacher is one of the top 5 race drivers of all time. Not more, not less.
And he was surely helped by the teams he worked with, starting with Flavio Briatore and Jean Todt, who pulled these great teams together.

That Benetton fell backwards in 1996 is in no way prove of Schumi´s abilities, in the same way that Ferrari fell in 2005 is in no way prove of Schumi´s disabilities.

If you guys constantly bring up 1996, then we will have to start to examine 2005 and why Schumacher (AND Brawn!) could not do better. Yes, the tyres....but is Schumi not able to drive beyond his tyres? Listening to some of the statements here, one would get the impression.

That teams have cycles, and that after a high period of a few years on top most teams fall (often after having won two WDC´s) is a well known historical fact.

The only team which really went well beyond that mark was Ferrari with Schumacher AND Brawn in the 2000 - 2004 "era", as Schumacher himself proclaimed it already in 2000.

Which again supports my original statements in this thread, that both Brawn and Schumacher needed each other to achieve what they achieved.

No he did worse in 2005 and that too with Brawn onboard!

Everyone is lucky to win wdc
Senna is lucky to win 3 WDC , with his super dominant Mclaren Honda and to have Ron Dennis and Honda engine
Prost was lucky to get all that dominant cars
Alonso is lucky to get Renault and to get all those Great people in his team at once
Hill, JV are lucky to get some of the best Williams cars and great engine!
Mika is lucky to get great Mercedes and Ron
Lewis is lucky to get Ron and Merceded
Kimi is lucky to get Ferrari and get Luck again!!!

Who isnt lucky mate, all those who are sucessfull are lucky !


Yes there is, As there was NO major rule change from 1995 to 1996.....infact there is Zero change!
Still 1996 Benetton fell backwards
In 2005 there was a Major rule change which effected the cars drastically....which was evident from the fact they returned to form when the tyre rule was reinstated.


Yeah he did get beyond the tyres and had some great races which his teammate with same equipment was not able to do and ranked 3rd in the WDC when his teammate was 9th or something like that!
Which surely shows he got over the problem! but the teams in front of them were not catchable at all!



Yeah it went backwards true, but not without those artificial rule changes brought on by FIA on every single season just to shoot Ferrari down the pecking order

yeah i agree with that!

Seems you apply the same tactics in reading as in judging drivers: little comprehension but a lots of presumptions and a blossoming fantasy. Go figure.

At least you won't mind if I call your creative interpretation of my post doofus, as you don't regard that as insulting. So be it then.

hahaha mate
i said Doofus comment , i didnot call you Doofus straight on face!
You calling me Doofus straight!

So I am happy, because I agree with you also on almost all the points you made above.
The differences we have often come from the different perspectives we have when we look at things.

Like the Indian story with the blind men and the elephant, one got the elephant by the trunk and thought it was a hose, another one got the elephant by the belly and thought it was a warm wall, one got the elephand by the tail and thought it was a broomstick hanging down from heaven, one got the elephant by the leg and thought it was a pillar.

Needless to say, then they all entered into a hefty discussion about what they experienced, because naturally they all thought they were right in their perception. They were blind men, remember, so they could not see the totality of the elephant.

Ironically, on the BB we sometimes get into similar situations.

"Who isnt lucky mate, all those who are sucessfull are lucky !" - this statement is absolutely right. How can you be successful without being lucky. To a certain degree you make your own luck, to a certain degree you just have to be lucky....

Cheers, sreevishnu!

No probs mate, always welcome!
Hope to have some great discussion from now on!

Are you out to make a fool of yourself, or what?

Again you fail to comprehend the meaning of "I call your creative interpretation of my post doofus".

I'll make a last attempt: that means I apply that attribute to your interpretation of my post, not to you in person.

Just like you did before and then tried to establish as appropriate.

Sheesh, I don't believe that I'm really discussing on this level....

sorry for that, i got it mixed up
Really sorry mate!
I got it mixed up and read it differently

He is talking about 1996 you Doofus, Brawn wasn't at Ferrari.

The 3rd best car makes MS's car no better than the 5th best individual car by the way.

Okay then, accepted!

Another one out of the same corner... where did I say Brawn was at Ferrari in '96?

At least your insults are straight, if a bit, well... cheap.

But what to do if the arguments are failing, eh?

MS didn't dominate in 1996, he had the 5th best car and did very well, was always a threat and got 3 wins, whats your problem to understand something so simple Doofus?

Brawn developed through 2008, no wins and had the fortune of McLaren and Ferrari having to go to the last race for the title and having to spend all their resources to get that title rather than developing for the new 2009 rules which put them well behind the others - I suppose you cant understand something that simple either? Are you saying the race results are the result of Brawn on the day and not the 1 second per lap faster overall car? Well, are you?? The 2008 car under Brawn qualified LAST at some races, ever see MS last other than normal regulation placements?

I already said your questions are loaded to the result you want.

Nah, just having a bit of fun on the "Doofus" bandwagon

You said - "through brilliant tactics
applied by... what's his name again"

I presumed you meant Brawn, my mistake if you didn't.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/motor-r...wn-1670336.html

Hm, hm.

I guess I should have written "what was his name again" would that have helped?

And by now I'm really interested in that damn name... I remember that they appled quite a brilliant pit strategy in Monza that year
and also were the only team smart enough to go with a full wet setup in Barcelona. Whoever was responsible can't have been too bad at his job either.

Brawn's cars have won without MS in the car...so what? AND, it must be said, as team principle, former designer and the guy making the strategy calls, Brawn gets some credit for the current dominant car.

Lets put it this way, Button will likely win the WDC this year...How many WDC did MS win without Brawn invovled? Puts the shoe on the other foot doesn't it?

Both contributed as did Todt and Byrne to the success they had at both Benneton and Ferrari. Just let it go at that.

If you want to look at the body of evidence you have to view the whole thing. Your arguement is conveinent in that you limit to only those peices that support your pointo of view. In science we call that bias.

Your whole argument rests on Alesi and Berger not doing as well at Benneton after MS left...well, look at those drivers. Both were journeymen drivers and at the end of thier careers. Big shock that MS was better than they were. Berger drove the same Mclaren as Senna took to the WDCx2 and only won a hand ful of races. Alesi only one lucky win in his career.

So "Brawn needs a good driver to dominate"...well, I did not see MS win the WDC in 2005 with a shit car (well tires) or in the almighty 1996 year that you keep drudging up so he needs a little help too then.

fact is that Brawn has won races with 2 different teams, and dominated with 2 different drivers. Who here thought Brawn would even see points this year based on what they had to go through over the winter let alone dominate the season?

Fact is, that given the surrounding circumstances, Brawn's performance this year may be the best in F1 history. Are the major players uncharacteristically down (ie Ferrari and Mclaren's performances)? Sure, but they knew the rules were changing and in years past they have reacted as well or better than mose yet they are behind Brawn like everyone else. That you want to poo all over this year and Brawn with lame excuses and say ti does not count because MS is not still driving sounds like sour grapes from a MS fanboy.

Yepp, the falling Benetton in 1996 is to prove Brawn's disabilities [at Benetton], in't it? He did not have to sacrifice the 1995 season (in fact championship was won), still "he produced" a shit car for 1996, unlike in 2008/2009 at Honda...

And right after the almighty 2004 season Brawn also "produced" a shit car for 2005, did not he? What was wrong with Brawn?

Sorry, for the late reply, I was on a holiday.

For the first part of your post you seem to indicate that Schumacher fans are somehow worse than other fans. True, he has those hero worshipper kind of fans, but not more than Senna had or Alonso has or Kimi has, or any other driver for that matter. As a German you might have felt those Schumacher "Rotkäppchen" more in Germany but I don't think that means he has more of that kind.

Actually I have always felt it was Senna among all drivers who was wrapped into an unjastified mythical mist by his fans. But that's mybe just my subjective feeling as you have your subjective feeling about Schumacher fans.



No it does not. If anything, all thorugh this thread I feel that it's more important for you to "destroy the Schumacher myth" than for his fans to talk him up. Of course, when he is attacked his fans will try and argue for him, wouldn't you for Senna? But who is the one who looks pained by something here? I feel you are by the fact that Michael was as successful as he was.

That Jenson's success pains Schumacher fans is more your imagination, I am afraid, than reality. I definitely don't feel any pain by it, nor I feel it threatens Michael's legacy in any way. You keep telling us in this thread that it does threaten it, but I still don't know why is it so important for you to convince yourself and others of that?
Maybe you want Schumacher fans to feel the "pain, because Senna fans felt pain when Schumacher came and overshadowed many of Ayrton's records and achievements? Anyway, if you track back my posts since the beginning of this season I have nothing but applause and praise for Jenson, I'm not even too surprised he can do it as his strength has always been consistency. I don't feel any tiny bit of jelousy for him, again if you track my posts this year I have been rooting for him and Ross Brawn...

If Jenson or anyone else can make it as big as Schumacher then so be it. But I genuinely don't feel (and not because of jealousy or because I feel threatened by Jenson's great season as a Schumacher fan) that Jenson is anywhere close to that, not even if he wins all of the remaining races. He would be close if Schumacher has only had 2002 or 2004 by his name. But he had so much more. And to say just because Jenson can dominate in a dominant car he could have done everything that Schumacher did is a far stretch IMO.