Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20770 replies to this topic

#6201 Galka

Galka
  • Member

  • 300 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 October 2010 - 09:58

This is not my article. Nobody said that his wins were not fair and square.
You said it´s not like he "wiped the floor' with Massa, but he did it and the figures don´t lie.

Ok. Is Alonso then destroying Massa now in the same way as Schumacher "destroyed" him in 2006?

Advertisement

#6202 Urawa

Urawa
  • Member

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:00

Ok. Is Alonso then destroying Massa now in the same way as Schumacher "destroyed" him in 2006?


Yes he does

#6203 Galka

Galka
  • Member

  • 300 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:07

Yes he does

OK. Given that in the first half of the season Alonso was not exactly in good shape, severely criticised for his mistakes, losing quite a few points through these mistakes, and still he managed to do over the season the same thing with his teammate as Schumacher did in 2006.
I'm not surprised that 2006 title went to Alonso. Even in 2010, with lots of rather stupid mistakes and in the first half of the season being "not himself", he performs on the level of 2006 Schumacher.

Edited by Galka, 03 October 2010 - 10:08.


#6204 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:13

In fact, Felipe was quite good in 2006. He was a solid points scorer, he had two victories, two poles, 4 podiums, and overall did a much better job than Fisichella, who finished the year behind Massa in WDC, and Massa was 3rd in the standings, right behind Schumacher.
Schumacher was superior, but it's not like he 'wiped the floor' with Massa.
It's Alonso who is destroying Massa today - Felipe did not even manage to get a victory or a pole this year.
The gap between Alonso and Massa this year is much bigger than it was between Schumacher and Massa. Maybe it's a result of an injury, I don't know.



The gap is not bigger. You have to look a bit deeper into your analyse.

#6205 Urawa

Urawa
  • Member

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:17

OK. Given that in the first half of the season Alonso was not exactly in good shape, severely criticised for his mistakes, losing quite a few points through these mistakes, and still he managed to do over the season the same thing with his teammate as Schumacher did in 2006.
I'm not surprised that 2006 title went to Alonso. Even in 2010, with lots of rather stupid mistakes and in the first half of the season being "not himself", he performs on the level of 2006 Schumacher.


I see quite a similarity between 06/10. Speed was not an issue for both Alonso/Schumacher in those years but both did/do too much small blunders.
In 06 Alonso was almost faultless, that´s why Michael missed the title. In 10 Alonso´s competition is harldy faultless, that´s why he is still in the title hunt.

Edited by Urawa, 03 October 2010 - 10:20.


#6206 Paul Prost

Paul Prost
  • Member

  • 767 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 03 October 2010 - 10:24

Perhaps Schuamcher is having his 'Rosberg at McLaren in 1986' moment.

Keke drove for Williams under Patrick Head's technical direction for four years. He had the reputation as the fastest man in F1. Then he moves to a new team with a new technical direction and struggles, mainly because he and the designer of the MP4/2C had fundamental differences of opinion as to how to balance the car.

Edited by Paul Prost, 03 October 2010 - 10:25.


#6207 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 03 October 2010 - 11:30

Perhaps Schuamcher is having his 'Rosberg at McLaren in 1986' moment.

Keke drove for Williams under Patrick Head's technical direction for four years. He had the reputation as the fastest man in F1. Then he moves to a new team with a new technical direction and struggles, mainly because he and the designer of the MP4/2C had fundamental differences of opinion as to how to balance the car.


I can understand what you are attempting to say but;

A) Rosberg did not have the reputation of being the fastest man prior to 1986. He had the reputation for being the most spectacular with perhaps the best car control and B) M Schumacher was not attributed with these two traits just before the 2010 season got underway.

If I had to compare M Schumachers situation with anybody from yesteryear, the name Nelson Piquet springs to mind but of course with big differences. The similarities are that Piquet had his Brabham team moulded around him after producing a decent show alongside Niki Lauda just before the Austrian retired ( rather like what M Schumacher did alongside the Brazilian a decade later). Piquet had teammates like Rebaque, the Fabi brothers, Surer and Patrese. In 1986 however he moved to Williams into what many believed as an automatic number 1 having been double world champion - alongside Mansell. Mansell was the first genuine quality teammate the Brazilian faced and in a new team environment without Bernie to support him, Mansell comprehensively beat Piquet for two seasons. Hence, Piquets reputation went down like a lead balloon.

#6208 zeph

zeph
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 October 2010 - 11:42

Perhaps Schuamcher is having his 'Rosberg at McLaren in 1986' moment.

Keke drove for Williams under Patrick Head's technical direction for four years. He had the reputation as the fastest man in F1. Then he moves to a new team with a new technical direction and struggles, mainly because he and the designer of the MP4/2C had fundamental differences of opinion as to how to balance the car.


Hmph, fastest man in F1? The guy that lucked into the '82 championship because Pironi was taken out? Who won a grand total of 5 races in his entire career?

#6209 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 October 2010 - 12:05

Excuses, excuses.
Two victories that Felipe got in 2006 were fair and square. You just can't live with the fact that Schumacher's teammates can actually get victories.

As for Alonso and Massa - ok, ok, you've persuaded me, let's consider that in Germany Felipe won.
Alonso has 3 victories, 2 poles, 3 podiums, 4 FL, 184 points (corrected for Germany)
Massa - 1 victory, zero poles, 4 podiums, zero FL, 135 points
One victory does not change much in that statistics.

And the statistics of Schumacher vs Massa I've done above.
Remember, guys, that in 2006 Massa was a new man for Ferrari, fighting at the top for the first time.
Today he had 3 years at Ferrari.
Using him as a benchmark of comparing Schumacher of 2006 and Alonso of 2010 (and many say that Alonso today is a "shadow of his former self") does not exactly flatter Schumacher.


maths isn't a strong point of yours, is it?

@ the moment, germany corrected
Alo 184
Massa 135
Massa ~73% of Alonso's points

end of 2006
Sch 121
Massa 80
Massa ~66% of MSC points


Massa is scoring closer in % to Alonso's points that to Schumacher's.
This does not take into account that Schumacher's 2006 last 2 races were luck disasters, leading Suzuka while the engine went off, having car problems in brazil Q and getting hit by fisichella in the race putting him back

correcting these you would have had
Sch 121 + 10 (Suzuka) + 5 (winning Brazil) =136
Felipe 80-2 (3rd in Suzuka, not 2nd) -2 (2nd in Brazil) =76
Massa would have been ~55% of MSC's points



Flip it any way you want, Massa is a lot closer in points this year to Alonso than he was to Michael in 2006.

#6210 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 03 October 2010 - 12:38

Hmph, fastest man in F1? The guy that lucked into the '82 championship because Pironi was taken out? Who won a grand total of 5 races in his entire career?



While I agree with the viewpoint that Keke wasnt recognised as the fastest driver going into the 1986 season (I think Senna was already acknowledged to be the fastest going into 1986 although not the finished article) I believe your post sells Keke short. Yes, he won a grand total of 5 races but he never had the equipment to clock up wins that other drivers had the fortune to. He was superb in the cosworth powered Williams in 1982 against the turbo Renault's, Ferrari's and BMW's. In 1983 the Cosworth had no chance at all against the turbos who had an extra season of development and when he fnnaly did get the Honda turbo, it was a crude powerplant and it was until 1985 that the package was sorted but then it was too late as he signed for McLaren.

#6211 Paolo

Paolo
  • Member

  • 1,673 posts
  • Joined: May 00

Posted 03 October 2010 - 13:46

While I agree with the viewpoint that Keke wasnt recognised as the fastest driver going into the 1986 season (I think Senna was already acknowledged to be the fastest going into 1986 although not the finished article) I believe your post sells Keke short. Yes, he won a grand total of 5 races but he never had the equipment to clock up wins that other drivers had the fortune to. He was superb in the cosworth powered Williams in 1982 against the turbo Renault's, Ferrari's and BMW's. In 1983 the Cosworth had no chance at all against the turbos who had an extra season of development and when he fnnaly did get the Honda turbo, it was a crude powerplant and it was until 1985 that the package was sorted but then it was too late as he signed for McLaren.

:up:

#6212 zeph

zeph
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 03 October 2010 - 13:49

In 1983 the Cosworth had no chance at all against the turbos who had an extra season of development and when he fnnaly did get the Honda turbo, it was a crude powerplant and it was until 1985 that the package was sorted but then it was too late as he signed for McLaren.


Indeed. The McLaren-TAG that made Prost a champion in 1986 with 4 wins and 72 points, whereas Rosberg scored only 22 points and his best finish of the season was a single second place.


If I had to compare M Schumachers situation with anybody from yesteryear, the name Nelson Piquet springs to mind but of course with big differences. The similarities are that Piquet had his Brabham team moulded around him after producing a decent show alongside Niki Lauda just before the Austrian retired ( rather like what M Schumacher did alongside the Brazilian a decade later). Piquet had teammates like Rebaque, the Fabi brothers, Surer and Patrese. In 1986 however he moved to Williams into what many believed as an automatic number 1 having been double world champion - alongside Mansell. Mansell was the first genuine quality teammate the Brazilian faced and in a new team environment without Bernie to support him, Mansell comprehensively beat Piquet for two seasons. Hence, Piquets reputation went down like a lead balloon.


True to some extent, but Piquet did take his third title in '87 (the second season you are referring to), in a team that had turned hostile and favored local boy Mansell. Mansell was faster on many occassions and collected more wins, but to say that Piquet was 'comprehensively beaten' is overstating the case.

Edited by zeph, 03 October 2010 - 13:50.


#6213 Legendary

Legendary
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 October 2010 - 19:08

the average q2 difference between ms and fm in 2006 was 0.607
the average q3 difference between fa and fm in 2010 is 0.245 (not including belgium, were alonso was unlucky)

#6214 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 03 October 2010 - 19:48

During the 2006 pre-season tests, Massa had much less running than Schumacher in the 2006 car (248-F1).

Check out Forix. Massa spent much of January and February that year running the modified F2004, sometimes with the old V10 3L engine.

Schumacher's achilles heel in 2010 is equality.

#6215 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2010 - 00:55

Indeed. The McLaren-TAG that made Prost a champion in 1986 with 4 wins and 72 points, whereas Rosberg scored only 22 points and his best finish of the season was a single second place.

This thread isn't about Rosberg but you have missed the point I believe. He was a very quick driver (his stunning qualifier at Silverstone that blew everyone away) to his great final drive in Adelaide where he was much quicker than his teammate Prost after finally being allowed to set the car up to his desired oversteer. The point was that how could such a fast guy have such a terrible season at McLaren. Keke wasn't one to make excuses and acknowledged Prost but most who were around to see it knew Keke was extremely quick when the car suited his style. I viewed champion elect Prost at Adelaide in 1985 and he was dismally disinterested, as a "professor" with nothing in the way of points to gain should be. On the other hand Rosberg was visibly the only guy who could foot it with Senna.

I think this is the only possible explanation for why Michael is so slow relative to his teammate - the car doesn't suit. However in 1986 McLaren built their team around Prost who had been there two seasons already. The same can't be said for Nico Rosberg at Mercedes but maybe, the 2011 car will somehow vault Michael ahead of Nico.

#6216 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2010 - 00:58

I think the Massa Alonso comparisons are somewhat skewed by Felipe's head injury. I'm sure he has lost a tenth or two, but certainly Alonso deserves great credit, on track at least, for his two WDCs, beating Michael, and 2010 at Ferrari from mid season on.

#6217 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 October 2010 - 06:47

It's been an interesting season so far,although it's not really worse than what I expected after the pre-season testing,considering all the variables stacked against him. There's no doubt he hasn't achieved what many people expected of him in 2010,but I'm not one of those people so nothing has changed over the course of this season,as far as I'm concerned. Raikkonen was blasted in 2007 and 2008 as has MS in 2010,with no consideration for the fundamental incompatibility between driving style/car+tyre package. I think a lot of F1 fans are unwilling to accept F1 is a lot more random these days and that the car matters a whole lot more than it used to in the past: I'm sure they'll come around to changing their opinions when a driver comes out and says it like it is,though.  ;) This random 'Raikkonen sucks,Massa has lost it,Schumacher is past it' nonsense is the bane of F1 in the internet age and the attendant ADDs.

His move on NH at Singapore was a bit weird,I haven't seen him make a lunge like that in ages...can only imagine how frustrated he must've been at that point in the race.

#6218 zeph

zeph
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 07:31

I think this is the only possible explanation for why Michael is so slow relative to his teammate - the car doesn't suit. However in 1986 McLaren built their team around Prost who had been there two seasons already. The same can't be said for Nico Rosberg at Mercedes but maybe, the 2011 car will somehow vault Michael ahead of Nico.


I don't really believe that the MGP cars (or their tires) are all that bad. Rosberg is just 6 points behind on Massa, and although he has been impressively consistent I would not attribute his performance solely to his talent. The car has not failed him (other than a loose wheel in Hungary).

Maybe it's time to consider the possibility that Schu may not be as good as he once was. No shame in that. I am not a fan, but I commend him for putting his reputation on the line like that, simply because he wants to race again. He had all to lose and little to gain, as we can see now. That deserves respect.



#6219 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 08:24

A) Rosberg did not have the reputation of being the fastest man prior to 1986.


If you asked any F1 commentator, journo, whatever in the years 83 - 85 who they considered to be the outright fastest man in the field I doubt there would be many who named anyone other than Rosberg. Whether they were right or not is far from the point, but the original poster was correct in saying that - at that point - Rosberg was 'considered' the fsatest in the field.

Off topic.


Advertisement

#6220 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 09:37

Good reply, which raises an interesting question.

What was / is the relative performance difference between the 1996 Ferrari and the 2010 Mercedes ?

If there is debate about Schumacher's skills, then take him out of the equasion.


The relative performance between the 2010 Mercedes and 1996 Ferrari wouldn't be really comparable really.

In 1996 there was Williams and then..............Ferrari. The gap could have been 30 seconds between the two in terms of raw pace but the car was still the second best car out there (in Schumacher's hands anyway). Where conditions permitted or when Williams failed, Schumacher picked up the points.

Now, you have three or maybe four teams in between

In 2010 if Ferrari, Mclaren and Renault (or the Williams) didn't exist, and the Red Bulls proved unreliable or kept driving into each other or other things then Mercedes would have won too. It's all relative though. If only Red Bull and HRT were racing, the HRT would be contesting the podium regularly too.

#6221 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:02

MS gets way too much credit for the return to form of Ferrari... the process started with LdM taking over then recruiting Todt then MS got lucky when Senna died as it was Senna that was meant to go to Ferrari (... for a boat load of cash). Then all the other key technical people (some of whom were also in Benetton with MS) signed up and the rest is history.

Giving MS credit for Ferrari's former dominance is like crediting MW for the rise of Redbull (because he happenned to be there when it happened) and ignoring the input of Horner, Newey and a number of others.


Your comparison is spot on - to claim that Webber has been bringing Red Bull to the top, when there was Horner, Newey, Coulthard and others involved in it is as ridiculous as the constant claims of some parties on this BB that Schumacher pulled a miracle by bringing Ferrari back to the top - MS was one part of it, and possibly not even the major part, as we have seen in many instances.

MS should get credit for being one of the greatest drivers in the history of the sport (which in my opinion he showed more in 1993 to 1999 more than in 2000 to 2004)... but nothing else.


That´s about it. To put Schumacher on a higher pedestal has always been wrong IMHO.


..... once Fernando Alonso had better machinery than Schumacher the magic of his early years (ie being able to fight for the title against superior cars) was found to have gone and Ferrari ushered him out for the guy who appeared at the time to be the pick of the next generation of drivers.


Very well said - Ferrari saw of course the telemetry recordings of Schumacher in 2005 and 2006 and saw that he was waning. That is why Kimi was ushered in....

#6222 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:07

.... bringing Ferrari back to the top - MS was one part of it, and possibly not even the major part.....


I have no claim to being a Schumacher 'fan' or anything such but this comment is just trying to put the man down for the sake of it. Michael was, without doubt, THE major part of teh Ferrarui revival that began in the mid-90's, as it was he who gave inspiration to galvanise what was a confused set up into a well driven team. I doubt that any other driver of that era would have been able to provide that central focus point that Michael brought to the party.

#6223 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:10

MS gets way too much credit for the return to form of Ferrari... the process started with LdM taking over then recruiting Todt then MS got lucky when Senna died as it was Senna that was meant to go to Ferrari (... for a boat load of cash). Then all the other key technical people (some of whom were also in Benetton with MS) signed up and the rest is history.


In a very real sense it was not an "era Schumacher" we were witnessing but an "era Montezemolo" that is still ongoing. LdM put the prancing horse back on track in a remarkable way since he returned to Ferrari after being the executive organizer of the Soccer World Championship in Italy. Compared to Luca the Dennis´and Briartore´s of this world di Montezemolo is in a totally different level in terms of leadership, even if his methods (The Horse Whisperer...) are quite peculiar, to say the least.

Then again, Schumacher´s methods have always been quite peculiar (to put it mildly) and he was lucky enough that Senna was not available any more to take the Ferrari seat.

#6224 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:12

I have no claim to being a Schumacher 'fan' or anything such but this comment is just trying to put the man down for the sake of it. Michael was, without doubt, THE major part of teh Ferrarui revival that began in the mid-90's...


I have no claim to being a Webber "fan" or anything such but Mark was, without doubt, THE major part of the Red Bull ascendence to fame that began in the late 2000s.....


#6225 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:15

if schumacher stayed at benneton its likely the key people that moved from benneton to ferrari wouldnt have moved over.

we can all speculate on what might have been and we will never know the answer unless you find a paralell universe where schumacher stayed at benneton and senna didnt die

#6226 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,508 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:24

if schumacher stayed at benneton its likely the key people that moved from benneton to ferrari wouldnt have moved over.

we can all speculate on what might have been and we will never know the answer unless you find a paralell universe where schumacher stayed at benneton and senna didnt die



Exactly am sure Schumacher would of done just as well in the 96 Benetton as he did at Ferrari that year. Infact am sure he could been closer to the Williams's in that year had he been with Benetton.

Edited by Massa_f1, 04 October 2010 - 10:35.


#6227 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:24

I have no claim to being a Webber "fan" or anything such but Mark was, without doubt, THE major part of the Red Bull ascendence to fame that began in the late 2000s.....


But that's not a claim that can be made, is it? I read your posts - often with amusement - and you do tend to seek every opportunity to hit below the belt where Schumacher is concerned. I agree with a lot of your posts, to be fair, but to claim that Michael played little part in the Ferrari revival is quite ridiculous (and to attempt, rather limply, to compare that situation to Webber and Red Bull is not even worth trying).

I understand that you don't like Schumacher - as I said, I'm not a particular fan either - but if you are someone who watches and enjoys F1, and motor racing, and you have a modicum of intelligence you have to accept the bloke was bloody good in his prime - better, without any argument, than most of his peers. You also cannot possibly look at the Ferrari situation and say 'well, of course, it would all have happened without Schumacher' as that's not only supposition but on very dodgy ground; I'm not after an argument - more an enlightening discussion - but who else do you see as having been a potential alternative to Schumacher when he moved to Ferrari? Who else do you see as a driver who - as we all known Schumacher did - motivated that team to such a level? I have to be honest and say i can't think of anyone.

#6228 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:28

its clear that coulthard is the genius behind redbull

#6229 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 10:41

its clear that coulthard is the genius behind redbull


:up:

 ;)




#6230 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:09

If you asked any F1 commentator, journo, whatever in the years 83 - 85 who they considered to be the outright fastest man in the field I doubt there would be many who named anyone other than Rosberg. Whether they were right or not is far from the point, but the original poster was correct in saying that - at that point - Rosberg was 'considered' the fsatest in the field.

Off topic.


What you like to present as fact is anything but. It is your opinion, and an opinion which is not quite reality. Rosberg was known as one of the fastest but I would say Prost after the death of Gilles between 1982 and 1985 had a reputation for being the fastest from memory and Piquet had the reputation (until Prost won his first WDC) as being the most complete driver. Going into the 1986 season Senna was known as the fastest with his performances for Toleman and his 2 wins and plenty of poles in 1985. Keke was known for being the most spectacular and for having the best car control, not for being the fastest.

What diminished Rosberg's reputation were his performances alongside Mansell in 1985. Though Keke got the better of Nige over the season, Nige went to Williams having been shown the door at Lotus and many expected him to be merely supporting Keke. This was before Nige became the star he was from 1986 onwards. Nige's performances alongside Keke made many people re-evaluate both the potential of Nige and the status of Rosberg. Having taken a bit of time to integrate into the Williams team which was Keke's own since 1982, Nige out-qualified him in the second half of the season. To remind you, Nige was not rated that highly then, Derek Warwick was considered the main British hope.


#6231 Johnrambo

Johnrambo
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:13

Michael was, without doubt, THE major part of teh Ferrarui revival that began in the mid-90's, as it was he who gave inspiration to galvanise what was a confused set up into a well driven team. I doubt that any other driver of that era would have been able to provide that central focus point that Michael brought to the party.


Todt, Byrne, Brawn "confused"? :drunk:

#6232 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:41

Re M Schumacher taking Ferrari to the top.

Plenty of drivel is written on this subject, helped no doubt by the tendency of the mass media to sensationalize and their need to fabricate superheroes to keep the simpletons fascinated.

When LdM took control he took a series of steps that got the ball rolling way before M Schumacher even won a GP. Prior to the Belgian GP of 1992 Ferrari announced Capelli would not be driving for the Scuderia in 1993 and that Gerhard Berger would replace the Italian. Ferrari made Berger the best paid driver of 1993 (more than Senna and Prost) and the signing was encouraged by LdM's old pal Niki Lauda who knew that Berger had learned a lot from Senna and McLaren. Alesi was quick and spectacular but wasnt adding to anything behind the scenes. Ferrari also took Osama Goto from Honda to work on their engine programe. Ferrari's 1992 V12 engine was overweight and underpowered and Harvey Posthelwaite got into a right mess with his F92A twin floor concept. So Ferrari made the further steps of recruiting John Barnard again and Gustav Brunner. A reminder. Alesi was nearly 4 seconds slower than the pace for qualifying at the 1992 Portugese GP, slower than Alboreto's Footwork, and the 2 Lotus cars. At the 1992 Japanese GP the fastest Ferrari was 5 seconds off the pace in qualifying and Alesi driving his heart out managed to be "only" 2.4 seconds of the pace at Adeliade, a point and squirt circuit where the flaws of the car are concealed to an extent.

In pre-season testing for 1993 Ferrari were 5 (five) seconds off the pace at Estoril compared to Prost and Hill in the Williams. And yet the common nonsense that is spewed around is M Schumacher had to drive that "horrible horrible" Ferrari in 1996. ;-) Perspective is neded here.

So from the low point of the tailend of 1992 and early 1993 we see a clear step by step improvement leading up to the championship for Ferrari in 2000. Have a look at the qualifying differences between the fastest Ferrari and pole from the end of 1992 onwards. Their is a blatent upwards trend. From being a lost cause they begin to pick up points, and even the odd podium. Todt's first race for Ferrari was at Magny Cours 1993. In 1994 they begin notching up regular podiums and even 3 pole positions and a win. In 1995 they managed another win and they were very unfortunate not to win two or three more. Which is where M Schumacher took over. Clearly the likes of Ross Brawn, Rory Byrne added to the team and M Schumacher was just another ingredient.



#6233 Polle

Polle
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:46

The Todt, Byrne, Brawn, Schumacher group was indeed a combo breaker. Took them a few years but was indeed worth it in the end.

#6234 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,972 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 11:49

Todt, Byrne, Brawn "confused"? :drunk:




Michael knows what is a ace in a team, he sponsors people, and pushes areas he thinks needs pushing behind the scenes, we don't see on camera, as it's behind doors as it's meant to be.

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.

There was no Brawn in 1996, but it takes a driver of a reputation to work with the best, and form professionals partnerships, Schumacher had put himself in a position to win titles at Benetton, he did, he could of stayed, the power he had at a young age was there, you are a magnet for others, Michael just knows who's aming for tbe same goal in the professional manner he is. MS did make outpspoken comments after 2005, the year ferrari didn't win after alot of years of wiinning, certain staff had left, and when the winter was over, new staff had came in, and when other drivers were taking holidays, MS stayed behind and worked with ferrari to help make 2006 back to fighting for the title, and iwthout that effort, his retirement year with ferrari, I don't think they would of challenged renault who were winners going into the year and they started it off strong as well. If Schumacher wants to fight for wins and titles, he doesn't take time off, this goes back to his championship title fights at Suzuka. Schumacher had millions, he had the reputaiton to rest at home and let other test drivers do work, but he didn't ask for it later on, ferrari did it for him, with MS he set exampls of extreme work ethic, and that mentality rubbed off on everyone, Schumacher was intence, especially leading up to his first ferrari title in 2000, after that, then ferrari got some extra test drivers, he had helped built a strong team, then reaped the rewards, concentrated more on fitness and being fresh for 2001/2002/2003/2004, some people wondered why he kept on doing it, but motvation and energy levels were enough in something you enjoy doing, so why stop, 1996-2006, a long time of schuey work ethic in a team-result, most successful period in ferrari history. He played a important role among other important roles, yence a dream team. It all came together, and with Michael it's always "we" and never "I". And another record he holds, he must be the only driver who has had major fia rules in f1 history changed to slow him and his team down-2003-one lap quali cough, 2 qualifying sessions, championship leader out in first session first-effectively the track sweeper, hinder his overall time and grid position for Sunday, FIA were so desperate and worried after 2002, that no one would challenge MS and Ferrari, they put in rules themselfs to trip them up, and in 2003 it almost worked, but MS beat the rules then as well, and came back in 2004 to do it quicker with his team, the tyre rule cost him the 2005 title, somethings you can't can't prepare for, even the most prepared man and team in f1 history!








Edited by SeanValen, 04 October 2010 - 11:59.


#6235 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:04

Michael knows what is a ace in a team, he sponsors people, and pushes areas he thinks needs pushing behind the scenes, we don't see on camera, as it's behind doors as it's meant to be.

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.


Finally the truth is out: it was Michael who "made" Jean Todt! :up:


#6236 lafitek

lafitek
  • Member

  • 325 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:05

Michael knows what is a ace in a team, he sponsors people, and pushes areas he thinks needs pushing behind the scenes, we don't see on camera, as it's behind doors as it's meant to be.

In 1996 Jean Todt was no top team boss, he was being brought under fire to quit, when things were going wrong in 1996, the dnfs etc, Schuey actually stood up for Jean Todt, commenting he is one of the teams stenghts.

There was no Brawn in 1996, but it takes a driver of a reputation to work with the best, and form professionals partnerships, Schumacher had put himself in a position to win titles at Benetton, he did, he could of stayed, the power he had at a young age was there, you are a magnet for others, Michael just knows who's aming for tbe same goal in the professional manner he is. MS did make outpspoken comments after 2005, the year ferrari didn't win after alot of years of wiinning, certain staff had left, and when the winter was over, new staff had came in, and when other drivers were taking holidays, MS stayed behind and worked with ferrari to help make 2006 back to fighting for the title, and iwthout that effort, his retirement year with ferrari, I don't think they would of challenged renault who were winners going into the year and they started it off strong as well. If Schumacher wants to fight for wins and titles, he doesn't take time off, this goes back to his championship title fights at Suzuka. Schumacher had millions, he had the reputaiton to rest at home and let other test drivers do work, but he didn't ask for it later on, ferrari did it for him, with MS he set exampls of extreme work ethic, and that mentality rubbed off on everyone, Schumacher was intence, especially leading up to his first ferrari title in 2000, after that, then ferrari got some extra test drivers, he had helped built a strong team, then reaped the rewards, concentrated more on fitness and being fresh for 2001/2002/2003/2004, some people wondered why he kept on doing it, but motvation and energy levels were enough in something you enjoy doing, so why stop, 1996-2006, a long time of schuey work ethic in a team-result, most successful period in ferrari history. He played a important role among other important roles, yence a dream team. It all came together, and with Michael it's always "we" and never "I". And another record he holds, he must be the only driver who has had major fia rules in f1 history changed to slow him and his team down-2003-one lap quali cough, 2 qualifying sessions, championship leader out in first session first-effectively the track sweeper, hinder his overall time and grid position for Sunday, FIA were so desperate and worried after 2002, that no one would challenge MS and Ferrari, they put in rules themselfs to trip them up, and in 2003 it almost worked, but MS beat the rules then as well, and came back in 2004 to do it quicker with his team, the tyre rule cost him the 2005 title, somethings you can't can't prepare for, even the most prepared man and team in f1 history!


ok he is good but is he better than rosberg in the same car?

#6237 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:14

Finally the truth is out: it was Michael who "made" Jean Todt! :up:


Indeed. Are you always this slow? Next, you'll tell me you didn't know that it was M Schumacher who was responsible for recruiting Todt at Ferrari in 1993 when M Schumacher was still at Benetton.

#6238 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:18

ok he is good but is he better than rosberg in the same car?



Thats not the point....he is better than Rosberg, but its just that he hasn't had testing, and he has't driven a car for three years and he doesnt like the tyres and Ross Braw favours Rosberg and M Schumacher is saving himself for the second half the season, I mean 2011 and BAR/Honda are rubbish and well...how many hats can Rosberg sell then if he is so good? Answer me that if you are so clever.

#6239 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:34

What you like to present as fact is anything but.


It's based on having watched F1 at the time and actively read everything I possibly could - in period - much of which I still have on a stack of shelves today. As i said, whether it was right or not is a different matter, but for a very wide selection of the motor racing fraternity Rosberg was considered the fastest man in the business from 83 to 85. I didn't say, by the way, that I believed it.



Advertisement

#6240 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:53

Todt, Byrne, Brawn "confused"? :drunk:


I'm not sure you understand - as far as I remember it, and correct me please if i'm wrong, but Brawn and Byrne followed Michael to Ferrari, not the other way around. The confused team I was referring to was, quite clearly, the Ferrari preceding the post 86 revival.


#6241 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 12:58

its clear that coulthard is the genius behind redbull



:rotfl: as soon as he left, they started winning :D

#6242 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:07

Ferrari also took Osama Goto from Honda to work on their engine programe.


Forgive the pedantry, but surely that was several years later? memory could be failing with old age, but....

#6243 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:13

I've read quite alot into Schumacher over the years and his arrival at Ferrari is not quite the grand judgement alot of his fans wish you to believe. At the beginning of 1995 Schumacher was convinced he wanted to drive for Williams as he saw them as the team going forward and the idea to join Ferrari was actually at the feet of Willi Weber. Infact according to Weber it took him 5 weeks to convince Michael that Ferrari was worth his interest as Weber was on friendly terms with Jean Todt and was impressed by the pitch Todt had laid out to get Michael onboard. The team was in a mess and it was a huge gamble, but Michael seized the challenge with alot of persuasion.

Ross Brawn also takes credit for managing Michael into the team player he became, and it was the people around Michael who made the dream team complete. Michael was a major part, but he wouldn't have enjoyed the sucess at Ferrari without the right guidance.

Ross Brawn has admitted that back in 1992 Michael found testing sessions dull and if he could, would get out of as much of it as possible. Ross taught him to understand the car, and appreciate the value of development with a drivers understanding, and thats the Michael who became so successful in later years. :)

Edited by tifosiMac, 04 October 2010 - 13:15.


#6244 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:21

Forgive the pedantry, but surely that was several years later? memory could be failing with old age, but....


Honda quit in 1992, Goto was at Ferrari for 1994. The V12 Ferrari turned from being a laughing stock where it would be out-powered by Ford V8's to an engine to be reckoned with on fast circuits at least though the lack of torque hurt them badly on other layouts right until the end of the V12 in 1995.

Edited by man, 04 October 2010 - 13:23.


#6245 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:28

Honda quit in 1992, Goto was at Ferrari for 1994.


You're right - my memory playing tricks; i'm thinking of when he went to sauber later on.


#6246 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:29

The team was in a mess


There it is again. Exactly how was Ferrari in a mess in mid-late 1995?

If Ferrari were a mess then, how would you define their state in 1992? Or 1986?

:rolleyes:


#6247 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:51

But that's not a claim that can be made, is it? I read your posts - often with amusement - and you do tend to seek every opportunity to hit below the belt where Schumacher is concerned. I agree with a lot of your posts, to be fair, but to claim that Michael played little part in the Ferrari revival is quite ridiculous (and to attempt, rather limply, to compare that situation to Webber and Red Bull is not even worth trying).

I understand that you don't like Schumacher - as I said, I'm not a particular fan either - but if you are someone who watches and enjoys F1, and motor racing, and you have a modicum of intelligence you have to accept the bloke was bloody good in his prime - better, without any argument, than most of his peers. You also cannot possibly look at the Ferrari situation and say 'well, of course, it would all have happened without Schumacher' as that's not only supposition but on very dodgy ground; I'm not after an argument - more an enlightening discussion - but who else do you see as having been a potential alternative to Schumacher when he moved to Ferrari? Who else do you see as a driver who - as we all known Schumacher did - motivated that team to such a level? I have to be honest and say i can't think of anyone.


I know that the claim cannot be made that it is Mark Webber who "made" Red Bull what it is now. Of course it was Sebastian Vettel!

Besides that, you are right in feeling the undercurrent of many of my posts - there is humour involved and also a dig at the sometimes formidable claims that are being made concerning Schumacher. As I said months ago, and SparkPlug has me on record for it, to me MS is the second best driver of all time after Senna (and I may do injustice to Jim Clark here), and also, that I don´t like particular aspects of Michael´s career (e.g. having just rewatched Jerez 1997 and the subsequent lies, until finally Schumacher confessed to what he did - very well portraited on a documentary from Italian television).

That Michael Schumacher is THE ingredient in the resurgence of Ferrari is a fairy tale that has been made up somewhat successfully by Schumacheristi, but I still don´t buy it and will never buy it. It was Luca di Montezemolo who led Ferrari´s renaissance and Schumacher was just another ingredient il Presidente put in successfully. Again, Schumacher was AN ingredient, but not THE ingredient, it would mean to devalue what Todt, Brawn and Byrne brought to the team.

The fairy-tale that only Schumacher could have won three races in 1996 is especially gripping and moving - as man has pointed out with his analysis, Ferrari had a clear upward trend all the way from beginning of the 1993 season. The full success was foreboding in 1996, but started to blossom only in 1997, when finally Brawn and Byrne joined the fray.

As is well known, Senna was the man who was planned to take over at Ferrari and of course, fate intervened. In my mind, Damon Hill, Jacques Villeneuve and Mika Hakkinen would have been equally qualified to become a very successful lead driver at Ferrari, although they may not have become a superstar in the Senna/Schumacher vein. This can be disputed forever - I am sure you agree that at least Mika Hakkinen would have become a similar superstar like Schumacher, if you look at the 1998/1999/2000 season.

Concerning the motivational factor, it would have been Jacques, the son of Gilles, who would have inspired similar veneration like his father among the Reds and the tifosi alike - as we have seen, Mika, like Kimi, may not have been hot-blooded enough to fully gel with the Italian mentality. Yet a Canadian with the famous surname and dare-devil driving skills (e.g. his overtake on Schumi in Estoril 1996 on the outside) would have made him a god in red. Trust me, I have lived in Italy for long enough and had a number of discussions with tifosi concerning that matter.

Also take into consideration the fact that it took quite a while for Schumacher to gain the sympathies of the Italians ("il Tedesco"!) and that right now according to Italian media claim that Alonso is already more popular at Ferrari than Michael ever was. Also be aware of the fact that Ferrari had become an international supergroup in the Schumacher days and Schumacher´s interface with Italians was limited, whereas nowadays Ferrari is again more Italian than for the last 20 years.

So whichever way you look at it, Schumacher was not the only possible driver, he was not THE ingredient without which the success would not have happened nor was he outrageously popular, even in view of the tremendous success he gained thanks to this supergroup constellation in the years 1997 - 2006.

#6248 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 7,140 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:55

There it is again. Exactly how was Ferrari in a mess in mid-late 1995?

If Ferrari were a mess then, how would you define their state in 1992? Or 1986?

:rolleyes:

Embarrassing, appalling are good words for the other years. 1995 was a vast improvement, but far from great. It was clear at the beginning of 1996 that Ferrari had gone down the wrong route of development, and their car looked drastically different from the other teams interpreting the regulation's. To win races that year was a massive achievement and the credit goes to Schuey and the team for that.

"It was pretty clear from the first test that we'd ****ed things up over the winter".. Eddie Irvine.

#6249 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 13:58

I'm not sure you understand - as far as I remember it, and correct me please if i'm wrong, but Brawn and Byrne followed Michael to Ferrari, not the other way around. The confused team I was referring to was, quite clearly, the Ferrari preceding the post 86 revival.


I am sure you understand - Michael´s contract with Benetton expired end of 1995 and Brawn´s and Byrne´s end of 1996 - that is in part a reason for the time sequence of events. Also, it was not Schumacher who offered them well paid contracts but Luca di Montezemolo (Jean Todt being his executive) so they would not have joined Ferrari without di Montezemolo employing them.

#6250 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 October 2010 - 14:11

Again, could be my memory playing tricks, but I thought Byrne retired after 95.


Again, my memory could be playing me tricks, but I thought that Byrne was paid a royal salary to retire from retirement - I am sure Michael paid it out of his pocket. Luca and Jean had nothing to do with it... ;)