Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20789 replies to this topic

#5001 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2010 - 16:43

Well, it was his own mistake so he can´t blame anyone else :wave:

As I remember it was car problem? He can't brake? But this show your knowledge.

Edited by ivand911, 25 August 2010 - 16:47.


Advertisement

#5002 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 25 August 2010 - 16:43

Well, it was his own mistake so he can´t blame anyone else :wave:

Yeah, he should have been more careful manufacturing/assembling that brake line.

#5003 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:08

As I remember it was car problem? He can't brake? But this show your knowledge.


Eddie Irvine said this:

There's little doubt that had Michael not had his crash he would have won the title that year - but he only has himself to blame. Everybody thinks that brake failure was responsible for the incident but I would like to put the record straight and record how the scenario really unfolded. I was really energised for the race because the car was doing great but I was also really hacked off with Michael.”

"He had been quoted as saying that I had only helped him a couple of times when the truth was that I had moved over for him several times without the team even asking me. I felt his comments were ungracious so when I flew past him at the start I decided to brake so late going into the corner that there would be no way he could come by me without sliding wide. He braked, locked up, came off the brakes and then tried to sweep by me.”

"But then he had to brake again when he realised he wasn't going to make it and that's when a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him straight into the tyre wall."


#5004 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:34

Eddie Irvine said this:

There's little doubt that had Michael not had his crash he would have won the title that year - but he only has himself to blame. Everybody thinks that brake failure was responsible for the incident but I would like to put the record straight and record how the scenario really unfolded. I was really energised for the race because the car was doing great but I was also really hacked off with Michael.”

"He had been quoted as saying that I had only helped him a couple of times when the truth was that I had moved over for him several times without the team even asking me. I felt his comments were ungracious so when I flew past him at the start I decided to brake so late going into the corner that there would be no way he could come by me without sliding wide. He braked, locked up, came off the brakes and then tried to sweep by me.”

"But then he had to brake again when he realised he wasn't going to make it and that's when a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him straight into the tyre wall."

Still there was a brake failure? Car was driving forward with no braking.


#5005 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:39

And this post was helpful because, you know fairy-tales? Or you just got in wrong forum.

well, since we're supposed to be discussing Formula 1 in the real world, and not Fantasyland, I think maybe the one in the wrong forum might even be you  ;)

#5006 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:42

Eddie Irvine said this:

There's little doubt that had Michael not had his crash he would have won the title that year - but he only has himself to blame. Everybody thinks that brake failure was responsible for the incident but I would like to put the record straight and record how the scenario really unfolded. I was really energised for the race because the car was doing great but I was also really hacked off with Michael.”

"He had been quoted as saying that I had only helped him a couple of times when the truth was that I had moved over for him several times without the team even asking me. I felt his comments were ungracious so when I flew past him at the start I decided to brake so late going into the corner that there would be no way he could come by me without sliding wide. He braked, locked up, came off the brakes and then tried to sweep by me.”

"But then he had to brake again when he realised he wasn't going to make it and that's when a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him straight into the tyre wall."

is this for real? if so LOL!!!!!!! :clap:

#5007 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:48

well, since we're supposed to be discussing Formula 1 in the real world, and not Fantasyland, I think maybe the one in the wrong forum might even be you ;)

Aaa, you were discussing something? I didn't see it. People are coming here to give their view of some situation, I just don't see what was your view. Everybody can be wrong, I have doubt that people who participated in events will say what really happen. About Irvine explanation, I don't understand it because he was outside that corner and Michael was inside? Michael was having rear brake failure and nothing was stopping the engine.

Edited by ivand911, 25 August 2010 - 17:51.


#5008 GiancarloF1

GiancarloF1
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:53

Still there was a brake failure? Car was driving forward with no braking.


In other words Eddie Irvine said this: Everyone thinks it was a brake failure, but no they are wrong. He is to blame, because he was racing against me, and a brake failure happened. But it was his fault.

Classic Eddie frustration. :rotfl:

#5009 F1Champion

F1Champion
  • Member

  • 2,925 posts
  • Joined: September 01

Posted 25 August 2010 - 17:56

Eddie Irvine said this:

There's little doubt that had Michael not had his crash he would have won the title that year - but he only has himself to blame. Everybody thinks that brake failure was responsible for the incident but I would like to put the record straight and record how the scenario really unfolded. I was really energised for the race because the car was doing great but I was also really hacked off with Michael.”

"He had been quoted as saying that I had only helped him a couple of times when the truth was that I had moved over for him several times without the team even asking me. I felt his comments were ungracious so when I flew past him at the start I decided to brake so late going into the corner that there would be no way he could come by me without sliding wide. He braked, locked up, came off the brakes and then tried to sweep by me.”

"But then he had to brake again when he realised he wasn't going to make it and that's when a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him straight into the tyre wall."



So.....the brakes failed then. If a nipple in the brakes snaps and you lose braking ability, then its brake failure.

#5010 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 18:09

1991 - not a capable car
1992 - ditto
1993 - ditto
1996 - ditto
1997 - took it down to the wire; cheat or no cheat
1998 - took it down to the wire

What's your argument again?

Heh...

91 not such a bad car 4th best and actually won a race if memory serves correctly, either that year or the year before
92 3rd best car
93 also 3rd best car
96 second best car
97 second best car
98 second best car

You seem to forget
94 best car
95 debatable
99 best car even if the Maccas looked impressive in Melbourne, Ferrari was the right package that year
00 best car
01 best car
02 best car
03 best car
04 best car
05 third best
06 best car

So what's your point?

#5011 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 18:11

So.....the brakes failed then. If a nipple in the brakes snaps and you lose braking ability, then its brake failure.

The point is the failure was, according to Irvine's quote, caused by a driver error. I doubt it, but, that's what he apparently means.

#5012 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2010 - 18:36

The point is the failure was, according to Irvine's quote, caused by a driver error. I doubt it, but, that's what he apparently means.

Yes, brakes usually fail when drivers use them? What is wrong way to use brakes? I think Irvine was joking here. 94 was second best car, about 95 you are right. But 95 car with Reno engine was much closer to the Williams 95, than 94 Benneton to the 94 Williams . Or just cars in 95 were equal. 06 car also debatable.

Edited by ivand911, 25 August 2010 - 18:48.


#5013 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 18:40

Yes, brakes usually fail when drivers use them? What is wrong way to use brakes? I think Irvine was joking here.

Seems to me, he means that he forced the issue to the point where Schumacher overstepped the physical limits of the car and according to him, that caused the failure. I seriously doubt it though, to brake a nipple by braking to lte and hard. I guess he suggests it, but I think it's impossible, even as much as I want to believe it!! LOL :lol:

#5014 GiancarloF1

GiancarloF1
  • Member

  • 925 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 25 August 2010 - 19:04

99 best car even if the Maccas looked impressive in Melbourne, Ferrari was the right package that year


Yeah, especially for Mika Salo's Hungarian GP.

#5015 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 25 August 2010 - 19:06

The point is the failure was, according to Irvine's quote, caused by a driver error. I doubt it, but, that's what he apparently means.


IMO he meant (I remember that quote) that the brake failure happened when MS was trying a desperate overtaking attempt. For the blaming of MS to make any sense, it would also have to mean that Irvine was going at such a speed that the overtaking attempt there would have resulted an off, even without the brake failure.

It's debatable though how bad the injury would have been if the other half of the brakes (he only lost the fronts IIRC) had worked through the sand. It would have been a high speed crash regardless, as the car sliding through sand has very little grip.

#5016 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 25 August 2010 - 19:27

IMO he meant (I remember that quote) that the brake failure happened when MS was trying a desperate overtaking attempt. For the blaming of MS to make any sense, it would also have to mean that Irvine was going at such a speed that the overtaking attempt there would have resulted an off, even without the brake failure.

It's debatable though how bad the injury would have been if the other half of the brakes (he only lost the fronts IIRC) had worked through the sand. It would have been a high speed crash regardless, as the car sliding through sand has very little grip.

He lost rear brakes, and nothing was stopping the engine. Front brakes blocked and smoke heavily.


#5017 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,796 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 25 August 2010 - 20:12

Ferrari traced the brake failure to a faulty component in the rear brake calliper, an o-ring on the bleed nipple. Subsequent investigation from Ferrari's brake supplier Brembo found that there was no fault with the components it had supplied and Brembo released this statement.

"After the first check, made in Maranello together with Ferrari, it has been clarified that the reasons of the unlucky accident occurred to Michael Schumacher are not related to any failure of Brembo components,"



I dunno but IMO the whole story is fishy.
Brembo doesn´t want to take the blaim, and Ferrari don´t want to blaim Schumacher as they
never ever said one negative word when he was driving for them (I suspect that he had it in his
contract).

The onboard is here: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
Schumacher is alongside Irvine going into copse corner, note he´s on the wrong side
and they are doing over 300km/h. Schumacher starts to lock up when he has turned the wheel
and it´s the inside wheel which locks up first.
IMO it looks like a clear drivers mistake, he braked too late and braked too hard having already started
to turn in.

Ferrari said one nipple broke, causing the rear brakes to fail.
On www.f1.com: The technical regulations also require that each car has a twin-circuit hydraulic braking system with two separate reservoirs for the front and rear wheels. This ensures that, even in the event of one complete circuit failure, braking should still be available through the second circuit.

#5018 MCh000

MCh000
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 25 August 2010 - 20:30

Bernie and Michael:

http://www.formula1....10/8/11154.html

#5019 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 25 August 2010 - 22:26

I dunno but IMO the whole story is fishy.
Brembo doesn´t want to take the blaim, and Ferrari don´t want to blaim Schumacher as they
never ever said one negative word when he was driving for them (I suspect that he had it in his
contract).

The onboard is here: http://www.youtube.c...feature=related
Schumacher is alongside Irvine going into copse corner, note he´s on the wrong side
and they are doing over 300km/h. Schumacher starts to lock up when he has turned the wheel
and it´s the inside wheel which locks up first.
IMO it looks like a clear drivers mistake, he braked too late and braked too hard having already started
to turn in.

Ferrari said one nipple broke, causing the rear brakes to fail.
On www.f1.com: The technical regulations also require that each car has a twin-circuit hydraulic braking system with two separate reservoirs for the front and rear wheels. This ensures that, even in the event of one complete circuit failure, braking should still be available through the second circuit.

In a high speed corner such as copse the brake bias will be relatively rearwards anyway (due to the aero loading on the rear wing), so even a rear brake failure is pretty disastrous, as seen by the speed at which he hit the tyre barrier.

Advertisement

#5020 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 August 2010 - 00:39

Eddie Irvine said this:

There's little doubt that had Michael not had his crash he would have won the title that year - but he only has himself to blame. Everybody thinks that brake failure was responsible for the incident but I would like to put the record straight and record how the scenario really unfolded. I was really energised for the race because the car was doing great but I was also really hacked off with Michael.”

"He had been quoted as saying that I had only helped him a couple of times when the truth was that I had moved over for him several times without the team even asking me. I felt his comments were ungracious so when I flew past him at the start I decided to brake so late going into the corner that there would be no way he could come by me without sliding wide. He braked, locked up, came off the brakes and then tried to sweep by me.”

"But then he had to brake again when he realised he wasn't going to make it and that's when a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him straight into the tyre wall."



That was the proper answer Eddie gave on the track.

The whole Michael thing is utterly ridiculous, and, if I remember correctly, Michael was just some 7 points ahead of Eddie at the time of his accident in Silverstone. Although Eddie even willingly had let Michael overtake without the team asking him, Michael was not that much ahead in the WDC. Eddie started to proof as a genuine danger to Michael and was duly removed and replaced by Rubens, the number 1b.

What happened to Eddie in the latter part of the 1999 was also beyond sanity - the three tyres ready at the tyre stop, or the strangely muted drives he put in in the last races, while Michael was sparkling. Even back then the suspicion was that Jean Todt rather surrendered the title than to give it to Eddie Irvine, who would take the number 1 to Jaguar.

A shameful affair, and I do hope Eddie will still start speaking out more...


#5021 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 August 2010 - 00:45

Heh...

91 not such a bad car 4th best and actually won a race if memory serves correctly, either that year or the year before WON TWICE IN 1990 AND ONCE IN 1991 IN THE HANDS OF NELSON PIQUET Third best car
92 3rd best car
93 also 3rd best car
96 second best car
97 second best car
98 second best car

You seem to forget
94 best car
95 debatable THAT WAS THE FAIREST CHAMPIONSHIP WIN IN MICHAEL´S ENTIRE CAREER
99 best car even if the Maccas looked impressive in Melbourne, Ferrari was the right package that year
00 best car
01 best car
02 best car
03 best car
04 best car
05 third best THE TYRES NOT TAILOR-MADE FOR FERRARI/MICHAEL
06 best car

So what's your point?


Correct but added some details.


#5022 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 August 2010 - 01:36

Posted Image

Here is what Buttoneer thinks are the ten best drivers in Schumacher´s first career:

1. Fernando Alonso
2. Mika Hakkinen
3. David Coulthard
4. Rubens Barrichello
5. Jenson Button
6. Felipe Massa
7. Alex Yoong
8. Jean-Dennis Deletraz
9. Takuma Sato
10. Michael Schumacher

In that order.


http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=2757443


I always knew you are one of us, Buttoneer! ;)

#5023 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,339 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 26 August 2010 - 02:53

That was the proper answer Eddie gave on the track.

The whole Michael thing is utterly ridiculous, and, if I remember correctly, Michael was just some 7 points ahead of Eddie at the time of his accident in Silverstone. Although Eddie even willingly had let Michael overtake without the team asking him, Michael was not that much ahead in the WDC. Eddie started to proof as a genuine danger to Michael and was duly removed and replaced by Rubens, the number 1b.

What happened to Eddie in the latter part of the 1999 was also beyond sanity - the three tyres ready at the tyre stop, or the strangely muted drives he put in in the last races, while Michael was sparkling. Even back then the suspicion was that Jean Todt rather surrendered the title than to give it to Eddie Irvine, who would take the number 1 to Jaguar.

A shameful affair, and I do hope Eddie will still start speaking out more...



Yes, I guess the 2 wins handed to him was shameful as well :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I don't think for a minute Ferrari wanted him to win when MS was around, but once he was out they did help him with team orders.... and I have seen pitstops before w3ith only 3 tyres ;);)

Eddie has spoken about it - he said he just failed to do the job in Suzuka - even with the same equipment as Michael Schumacher



#5024 jimm

jimm
  • Member

  • 3,227 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:29

Yes, I guess the 2 wins handed to him was shameful as well :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I don't think for a minute Ferrari wanted him to win when MS was around, but once he was out they did help him with team orders.... and I have seen pitstops before w3ith only 3 tyres ;);)

Eddie has spoken about it - he said he just failed to do the job in Suzuka - even with the same equipment as Michael Schumacher


I always thought the effort was kind of half hearted for Eddie. It was clear he was leaving, it was also seemed a win with him would have been bitter sweet for them.

I thought the better driver won (and that the better car at the end of that season was Ferrari). So the real justice would have been WDC to Mika and the WCC to Ferrari.

Hard to imagine that 3 tires would have been brought out for MS and someone not immediately taken behind the Paddock and shot.

#5025 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:31

At the time the claim was more like a second per lap quicker. It's only in recent years that it has been revised to a more realistic tenths of a second.

As for beating fairly... How many times was MS genuinely faster then Hill's Williams or Mika's McLaren? In their championship years in raw race pace they were faster almost every race. MS's wins those years normally came when they had a problem. If the 98 McLaren had been reliable mika would have won about a dozen races that year.

Did you read his lates article.
Here it is:
Q: Hand on heart Michael, would you ever have guessed it is possible for one driver to win seven titles in his career?
MS: No, nobody can be that narcissistic. Even in my wildest dreams I could not imagine winning more than one title, if at all, because as a driver you depend heavily on the competitiveness of your car. We are not tennis players or other lone sportsmen where it is only your own talent that makes or breaks it. But I love it the way it is - that you are part of a team where you have to put performance together like a jigsaw puzzle to be successful, and where everybody needs to be motivated by the others.
BE: How true. Formula One is a team sport and that shows in the outfit of every individual team member - they are all the same. So they should all pull together for the benefit of the whole. That’s why I am against the so-called ‘team order’ ban that is all over the place right now - because we are speaking about internal team decisions. The only collusion that cannot be tolerated in my opinion is one between two teams for the disadvantage of a third party. What’s your opinion Michael?
It is not enough to be quick and talented to win WDC title because it all comes down to the car and team who builds the car. He is saying that he is a team player and every person who is developing the car is important and has to be treated as such if you want to succeed. We can only speculate what kind of relationship he developed in Benetton and Ferrari with mechanics and with the rest of the team to create the atmosphere which has lead to such success.

#5026 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:38

No other driver been away from f1 for 3 years on current grid. One driver is not on the same page in this case. Nice try though.

Come on Sean - you're just hiding behind semantics. There's a kid driving a Renault F1 car who hasn't raced a car in this league and doing quite fine for pure speed. OK the kids fast but erratic but to expect the great Schumie to need more than 12 GP weekends to nail some performances of real sparkle if he still has it is being a bit dewey-eyed. You seem to think Rosberg's experience of a Williams on Bridgestones last 3 seasons gives him a huge leg up on the supposedly GOAT now they are both driving a Mercedes nee Brawn in supertanker mode on "last year's tyres". It's all change in 2010 as you should know, if you don't then start reading some informed, insider comment on the state of play and stop this fantasising about someone who appears to all observers to be well past his best.

OK if he starts thrashing everyone with sublime drives in 2011 we can say we got it wrong but it will be the comeback to beat them all.

#5027 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 26 August 2010 - 06:00

I'm not sure we have, but whatever!



'Just a few races'? two thirds of a season? 12 races? What i find curious is that you're willing to dismiss experience so readily; compared to a deriver such as Petwov I would say it should take Michael Schumacher a lot less time to 'learn' the car. He's done it before, many times, over a 15 year (and more) career. That experience doesn't go away.


I do not know what you mean learn the car. If you are talking about style of driving than the experience can help you and 12 races is a long period. What about the things that came after his retirement and they are new for him as for Petrov what about those things where experience can not help you (new tires, the car it self it is completely new car in comparison to 2006 what about simulators collecting the data from them to help you in preparation to races?

In those areas experience does not help you in learning. I will give you an example. Who do you think will learn new language sooner? Person who speaks multi languages has some experience in learning new languages and he has also the ability but he is 40 year old, or a child who does not have experience at all but he is 4 years old. The answer is child. So why is that? There ability is the same the difference is only in experience and age.

#5028 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 26 August 2010 - 06:49

What happened to Eddie in the latter part of the 1999 was also beyond sanity - the three tyres ready at the tyre stop, or the strangely muted drives he put in in the last races, while Michael was sparkling.


According to Irvine the initial Ferrari fade after MS's crash was because Ferrari canceled development projects and started focusing for 2000. After Hakkinen had lost a wheel nut in Silverstone, Coulthard crashing into him in Austria and having a malfunctioning fuel rig and blown tire in Hockenheim the Ferrari staff realized that the title fight was still on and again started pushing improvements for 99.

Regards the last race (Suzuka) Irvine wasn't driving the same car as MS did - Ferrari had made a breakthrough and introduced a new undertray for the previous Malaysian GP, which had made Ferrari clearly the class of the field. Irvine however crashed his car in Suzuka practice and his new undertray was damaged beyond repair. Ferrari had no spare bar the MS's one and Irvine had the option of getting it for himself. He however decided to give it to MS, as Hakkinen had shown impressive form during the practice runs and Irvine doubted he was able to challenge Hakkinen even with the new Ferrari. So Irvine raced with the older version while MS had the newest one, for an attempt to win the GP and get Irvine the title.

Edited by Big Block 8, 26 August 2010 - 06:54.


#5029 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 26 August 2010 - 07:43

Did you read his lates article.
Here it is:
Q: Hand on heart Michael, would you ever have guessed it is possible for one driver to win seven titles in his career?
MS: No, nobody can be that narcissistic. Even in my wildest dreams I could not imagine winning more than one title, if at all, because as a driver you depend heavily on the competitiveness of your car. We are not tennis players or other lone sportsmen where it is only your own talent that makes or breaks it. But I love it the way it is - that you are part of a team where you have to put performance together like a jigsaw puzzle to be successful, and where everybody needs to be motivated by the others.
BE: How true. Formula One is a team sport and that shows in the outfit of every individual team member - they are all the same. So they should all pull together for the benefit of the whole. That’s why I am against the so-called ‘team order’ ban that is all over the place right now - because we are speaking about internal team decisions. The only collusion that cannot be tolerated in my opinion is one between two teams for the disadvantage of a third party. What’s your opinion Michael?
It is not enough to be quick and talented to win WDC title because it all comes down to the car and team who builds the car. He is saying that he is a team player and every person who is developing the car is important and has to be treated as such if you want to succeed. We can only speculate what kind of relationship he developed in Benetton and Ferrari with mechanics and with the rest of the team to create the atmosphere which has lead to such success.


? Sorry I'm not sure how that relates to what I said, except for the fact that MS has a more realistic view of his own performance than a lot of his fans do. It seems by his words that he knows that he was not making up huge amounts of time on faster cars by himself, but that his team was giving him the goods to compete.

#5030 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 26 August 2010 - 08:33

I do not know what you mean learn the car. If you are talking about style of driving than the experience can help you and 12 races is a long period. What about the things that came after his retirement and they are new for him as for Petrov what about those things where experience can not help you (new tires, the car it self it is completely new car in comparison to 2006 what about simulators collecting the data from them to help you in preparation to races?

In those areas experience does not help you in learning. I will give you an example. Who do you think will learn new language sooner? Person who speaks multi languages has some experience in learning new languages and he has also the ability but he is 40 year old, or a child who does not have experience at all but he is 4 years old. The answer is child. So why is that? There ability is the same the difference is only in experience and age.


I don't think you are quite willing to see what I'm saying; yes, 12 races is a long time, and was always going to be, but it will be a long time next year, too. Are you suggesting (and I hope not) that simulators weren't around when Michael was racing before? They were. What i don't get is this - all through his career Michael Schumacher has shown a great ability to adapt, to learn, to pick up on things, to analyse and to understand what is going on; this isn't the first time he's driven on 'new tyres' (which, after 12 races, are not new) and it's not the first time he's driven a 'new car' (which, after 12 races, is not new) and with a new team, etc, and so on. In fact, in '91 he arrived in a new category, with a new car, at new team, on new tyres, with a new engine, at a new circuit, and was pretty bloody good; he then moved to another new team, with a new car, etc, and was again immediately bloody good. He didn't take 12 races that year, nor the year he moved to Ferrari, not the years the regulations changed, nor the years the tyres changed, and so on.

So what you're saying, basically, is that because he has been away from the sport for three years, he now takes a year to get up to speed? And that's because he has to learn new experiences (and we'll forget simulators....)? Why? Is that because of his age? I believe you think it is; if so, what makes you say he 'deserves a place on the grid'? I believe he does, but only if he can prove that it doesn't take him 12 races - and more - to learn new things, as if that's the case he's never going to deliver, is he?

Experience of Michael's level cannot be written off; it is that experience, and the success that came with it, that inspired Mercedes to hire him rather than someone currently in the sport. You cxall it speculation, but you can be pretty sure Mercedes did not expect the Greatest Driver of His Generation to take 12 races on a 'learning curve'.

As for your languages example, very good; but someone who has already learned several will easily handle anothyer.


#5031 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,116 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:27

Eddie Irvine said this:

There's little doubt that had Michael not had his crash he would have won the title that year - but he only has himself to blame. Everybody thinks that brake failure was responsible for the incident but I would like to put the record straight and record how the scenario really unfolded. I was really energised for the race because the car was doing great but I was also really hacked off with Michael.”

"He had been quoted as saying that I had only helped him a couple of times when the truth was that I had moved over for him several times without the team even asking me. I felt his comments were ungracious so when I flew past him at the start I decided to brake so late going into the corner that there would be no way he could come by me without sliding wide. He braked, locked up, came off the brakes and then tried to sweep by me.”

"But then he had to brake again when he realised he wasn't going to make it and that's when a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him straight into the tyre wall."


Read the last part.

"a nipple in the brakes snapped and sent him into the tyre wall".

When a nipple snaps on the caliper, brake fluid CANNOT be transmitted though the brake pipes to exert force onto the caliper to stop the car because the component has not done its job, ie slow the car down. If a bleed nipple failed on the caliper of a road car, the caliper cannot function effectively and will result in component failure.

Hence, there was a FAILURE. It was Schumacher's own fault but a brake failure nontheless.

Edited by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001, 26 August 2010 - 11:28.


#5032 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:27

I don't think you are quite willing to see what I'm saying; yes, 12 races is a long time, and was always going to be, but it will be a long time next year, too. Are you suggesting (and I hope not) that simulators weren't around when Michael was racing before? They were. What i don't get is this - all through his career Michael Schumacher has shown a great ability to adapt, to learn, to pick up on things, to analyse and to understand what is going on; this isn't the first time he's driven on 'new tyres' (which, after 12 races, are not new) and it's not the first time he's driven a 'new car' (which, after 12 races, is not new) and with a new team, etc, and so on. In fact, in '91 he arrived in a new category, with a new car, at new team, on new tyres, with a new engine, at a new circuit, and was pretty bloody good; he then moved to another new team, with a new car, etc, and was again immediately bloody good. He didn't take 12 races that year, nor the year he moved to Ferrari, not the years the regulations changed, nor the years the tyres changed, and so on.

So what you're saying, basically, is that because he has been away from the sport for three years, he now takes a year to get up to speed? And that's because he has to learn new experiences (and we'll forget simulators....)? Why? Is that because of his age? I believe you think it is; if so, what makes you say he 'deserves a place on the grid'? I believe he does, but only if he can prove that it doesn't take him 12 races - and more - to learn new things, as if that's the case he's never going to deliver, is he?

Experience of Michael's level cannot be written off; it is that experience, and the success that came with it, that inspired Mercedes to hire him rather than someone currently in the sport. You cxall it speculation, but you can be pretty sure Mercedes did not expect the Greatest Driver of His Generation to take 12 races on a 'learning curve'.

As for your languages example, very good; but someone who has already learned several will easily handle anothyer.

I know that simulators were around when Michael was racing before but he probably did not use them now days you have to if you want to be successful. Yes I believe that age is major factor. I think that he deserve place on grid because he is not the worst guy on the grid is he? How he will perform in the future is hard to say and you could be right.

#5033 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,116 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:33

Heh...

91 not such a bad car 4th best and actually won a race if memory serves correctly, either that year or the year before
92 3rd best car
93 also 3rd best car
96 second best car
97 second best car
98 second best car

You seem to forget
94 best car
95 debatable
99 best car even if the Maccas looked impressive in Melbourne, Ferrari was the right package that year
00 best car
01 best car
02 best car
03 best car
04 best car
05 third best
06 best car

So what's your point?



No one is discussing the 2000's. We were discussing the 1994-1999 period.

Having the 3rd of 4th best car doesn't mean you are a championship contender (see your 1991 point).

You've discussed something else completely (ignored my points) and picked out a selective argument.

Poor form.



#5034 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,822 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:46

Posted Image

Here is what Buttoneer thinks are the ten best drivers in Schumacher´s first career:



http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=2757443


I always knew you are one of us, Buttoneer! ;)

Oooh - a very dishonest representation of that post...

For the full story;

http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=2757463

Because I know without that pointer there will be a lot of jumping-to-conclusions.

#5035 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 26 August 2010 - 14:39

Oooh - a very dishonest representation of that post...

For the full story;

http://forums.autosp...a...t&p=2757463

Because I know without that pointer there will be a lot of jumping-to-conclusions.


Sorry, could not resist, Buttoneer...
It was honest though, that´s why I posted the link, so people could form their own opinion.;)

What caught my attention other than Schumacher behind Deletraz was that indeed you place Jenson behind Rubens. As good as Rubens is....but these were other days, probably Button´s 2009 and 2010 changed not only him but all our preception of him.

Sorry for disgressing, back to Michael.

#5036 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 26 August 2010 - 15:12

No one is discussing the 2000's. We were discussing the 1994-1999 period.

Having the 3rd of 4th best car doesn't mean you are a championship contender (see your 1991 point).

You've discussed something else completely (ignored my points) and picked out a selective argument.

Poor form.

I merely corrected some of the ones you got wrong like 96 for example.

No I don't think he was a contender in the 3rd best car, but then, he was more than fortunate to drive that 3rd best car, wasn't he? a lot of drivers never even get that chance, and yet ar compared in the same way with the ones who had the best or second best car all their lives.

#5037 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 August 2010 - 01:57

Nice 300 party !

Everybody was there, "personally", except Schumy.
Posted Image



Yeah, why should Michael bother to congratulate Rubens personally. After all, he send him an SMS!

http://news.bbc.co.u...one/8947184.stm

MS is a real friend, if you ever thought of one. The services Rubens did for him 2000 - 2005 remain unmentioned, probably there is so much dirty laundry Rubens can still come up with one day that Michael keeps a safe distance off track (and compensates this with an unsafe distance on the track).




#5038 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 27 August 2010 - 02:20

Yeah, why should Michael bother to congratulate Rubens personally. After all, he send him an SMS!

http://news.bbc.co.u...one/8947184.stm

MS is a real friend, if you ever thought of one. The services Rubens did for him 2000 - 2005 remain unmentioned, probably there is so much dirty laundry Rubens can still come up with one day that Michael keeps a safe distance off track (and compensates this with an unsafe distance on the track).

oh noes msc isnt in the photo...

didnt realise there were only 14 drivers in f1 and msc is the only one missing

#5039 eff1fan

eff1fan
  • Member

  • 301 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:08

Actually, if all there's to it is what the BBC reported, it isn't much of an apology is it?

"There were two reasons I sent the text. One of the main reasons is that it is his 300th Grand Prix and we have quite a lot of history together so I thought it was appropriate to congratulate him,"
"[The second reason was to] clarify the point because he sort of felt that I wanted to push him against the wall and very clearly this was not my ambition.
I wanted to race very tightly but without any contact. [I wanted to] clarify that if he felt that this was the case then I was sorry for that."



Advertisement

#5040 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,339 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:23

But if ms didn't mean to push him into the wall then he can only apologise for what rubens felt. Fact ius he didn't push him into the wall. It was close and wrong though had rbv touched the wall then ms would have had to apologise for actually doing that

Now if rubens is allowed to complain via twitter surely michael is allowed to reply to him using technology as well!!

#5041 steveninthematrix

steveninthematrix
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 27 August 2010 - 04:57

"the tallest tree catches the most wind"

#5042 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:48

Well, it was his own mistake so he can´t blame anyone else :wave:


His fault a rear caliper failed and he lost 70% of his effective braking is it. You know very well he badly broke a leg, talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel :rolleyes:

Maybe you were one of the crowd loudly cheering when he went into the wall that Murray Walker immediately called "disgusting"?

#5043 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:50

"the tallest tree catches the most wind"


the oak tree stands tall but eventually breaks
the willow yields and cannot be hurt

Which is the German tree, by the way?

#5044 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,094 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 27 August 2010 - 05:58

oh noes msc isnt in the photo...

didnt realise there were only 14 drivers in f1 and msc is the only one missing


You are right, Michael was not invited anyway. Who would want him after what he did in Hungary?

And I see enough top drivers in the picture, Alonso, Hamilton, Button, Vettel, Massa, not an aging relic. Nowadays Michael is the past, not the present or the future.

Rubens is very much the present, see who came to celebrate with him. There is probably a good reason why Michael is not throwing such parties - how many would show up? Fourteen? Rather optimistic...


#5045 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 August 2010 - 07:15

There is probably a good reason why Michael is not throwing such parties - how many would show up? Fourteen? Rather optimistic...

You don't have to worry about that. The people who need to come, will be there. And we are not sure if he was invited? Maybe he was not? All other come because they were invited. He will not go there if he was not invited and you know what will happen if he is there, all focus from Rubens 300 will shift to Hungary 2010. Nobody want that.

Edited by ivand911, 27 August 2010 - 07:16.


#5046 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,116 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 27 August 2010 - 09:44

You are right, Michael was not invited anyway. Who would want him after what he did in Hungary?

And I see enough top drivers in the picture, Alonso, Hamilton, Button, Vettel, Massa, not an aging relic. Nowadays Michael is the past, not the present or the future.

Rubens is very much the present, see who came to celebrate with him. There is probably a good reason why Michael is not throwing such parties - how many would show up? Fourteen? Rather optimistic...


Yup, I also count Sakon Yamamoto amongst the top drivers in F1 too.

It certainly doesn't get better than that. Rubens must have been absolutely over-awed by his presence.

:D

#5047 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 27 August 2010 - 09:51

. Rubens must have been absolutely over-awed by his presence.


I fail to see why Rubens Barrichello would be 'overawed' by anyone's presence; I thought he was a long time professional racing driver with a successful career behind him, not a schoolboy with a sticker book.

Perhaps he likes yamamoto?

Edited by Lifew12, 27 August 2010 - 09:52.


#5048 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,199 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 27 August 2010 - 10:12

Rubens is very much the present, see who came to celebrate with him. There is probably a good reason why Michael is not throwing such parties - how many would show up? Fourteen? Rather optimistic...



Well, and Fisichella was voted best driver of the field in 2002 by his peers. :D
Drivers who are not felt to be a threat by anybody or who are not successful tend to be rather popular among fellow drivers.;)

I'm sure Michael has his family and real friends and he doesn't need the love of his competitors to be happy with his life.

#5049 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,116 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 27 August 2010 - 10:18

I fail to see why Rubens Barrichello would be 'overawed' by anyone's presence; I thought he was a long time professional racing driver with a successful career behind him, not a schoolboy with a sticker book.

Perhaps he likes yamamoto?


I was being sarcastic.

Don't take life so seriously. It's not good for the health ;)

#5050 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,522 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 27 August 2010 - 11:47

Is there any chance this thread will ever return to a vaguely sensible discussion of the topic? Or is it now okay for a handful of yobs to derail threads to drive others away and prevent discussion at will?