Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#6301 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 11:46

Yeah, but your historical account for it is well managed, isn't it? i mean, you state that 'but for freak events' Ferrari would have won this, that and the other races in 93, without pointing out that it would have been 'freak events' that led to them doing so in the first place. Ferrari weren't a major force in '93 at all, yet you want us all to believe they were. Is that different from me 'wanting you to believe' that Michael was a very major, central part to the Ferrari resurgence? Not really. Likewise your historical perspective on how the fastest Ferrari was five seconds off the pace at Japan 92; it was, but you don't explain to those who might not know that the Williams' pair were a second ahead of the rest, and that Senna - next - was a couple of seconds up on the next man, his team mate; so that takes account of three of those seconds. Puts a slightly different light on events, doesn't it? Well, I think so. You should also clarify that 92/93 comparison by pointing out the car wasn't that great in 93 either. It was frequently more than a couple fo seconds off the ultimate pace. In anyone's view, sensioble view that is, it took until 96 for Ferrari to begin making some ground (and no, I'm not one who spouts how Schumacher had to drive a pile of shite that year) and the fruits of the 'dream team' only began to show results after that.


Not sure what your point is here. I stated Thr lowpoint was 1992 on track being up to five seconds off the pace and I also said they were five seconds off in pre season testing for 1993. The rebuilding of Ferrari started by ldM occurred in 1992 and it was the recruitment of key personell who obviously couldn't change the teams fortunes around from the end of 1992 to the start of 1993. Buy look at how 1993 progressed focus upon the fastest Ferrari and either the fastest car or fastest non Williams. They simply improved at an amazing rate that is seriously underestimated. I have a copy of the motoring news somewhere where both Berger and Alesi were scratching their heads being five seconds slower than Prost at Estoril in testing not knowing what to do, Berger being out qualified by a Minardi at S Africa I seem to remember - and by the Portugese GP Alesi was actually leading the race after a great start. Certainly, he was holding up a long que but from being five seconds off to leading the race on the same track half a year later is impressive. And then to actually win a race in 1994 and three poles not to mention the tragic luck at Monza and Estoril. Apart from Honda/Brawn can you think of another team that has improved as much as quickly in recent years. Look at the results in way you want, wdc standings, qualifying difference to pole, wcc results, podiums or even journals books and magazines, Ferrari improved a he'll of a lot from 1992 onwards on and off the track.

Advertisement

#6302 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 05 October 2010 - 12:15

Apart from Honda/Brawn can you think of another team that has improved as much as quickly in recent years.


Good question - how recent is 'recent'? Williams, 78 to 79, springs to mind, as does Ligier in teh same year; Ferrari, 80 to 81, and more so in 81 to 82 perhaps;Renault, 78 to 79, certainly, and Brabham in the same two years, arguably; Mclaren, 81 to 82 perhaps? I can look at more years for you, but that's just five to begin with. I certainly don't think the improvemtn at Ferrari between 92 and 93, or 93 and 94, was particularly stunning or notable - pleasing for them, of course, but not quite the spectacular rise to glory you see it as.


#6303 ivandjj

ivandjj
  • Member

  • 98 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 05 October 2010 - 12:21

I remember Berger in early summer 93' saying that it's not a problem getting within a second of Williams, but this last second will take a bit longer. In the end Ferrari had to wait for Renault's exit to find that last second.

#6304 Urawa

Urawa
  • Member

  • 1,135 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 05 October 2010 - 16:06

Not directly related to MS but somehow still.
Heidfeld pointed out today that the soft compound this year is entire different to last year´s tyres and they have also no similarity to the Pirelli tyres he tested...

#6305 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 16:55

Good question - how recent is 'recent'? Williams, 78 to 79, springs to mind, as does Ligier in teh same year; Ferrari, 80 to 81, and more so in 81 to 82 perhaps;Renault, 78 to 79, certainly, and Brabham in the same two years, arguably; Mclaren, 81 to 82 perhaps? I can look at more years for you, but that's just five to begin with. I certainly don't think the improvemtn at Ferrari between 92 and 93, or 93 and 94, was particularly stunning or notable - pleasing for them, of course, but not quite the spectacular rise to glory you see it as.


By recent I mean post turbo era i.e. 1989.

What is clear is that this is now a pretty tedious discussion. So my last post on this matter unless you have anthing interesting to add that is accurate rather than pie in the sky. ;-) This provides the facts in black and white that Ferrari were a team on the upwards trend. It should also be added that Ferrari stopped development of the V12 during the 1995 season.

Qual difference between fastest Ferrari and pole in 1993, 1994, 1995.

S.A 2.5
Brazil 3.4 1.4 0.8
Eur 2.4
San 2.7 0.6 0.1
Spa 3.9 1.7 0.6
Mon 1.8 1.4 1.2
Can 2.2 0.1 0.5
Fra 2.3 0.7 1.5
GB 4.1 0.1 1.5
Ger 2.5 pole 1.1
Hun 2.3 1.9 1.0
Bel 2.5 1.0 pole
Ita 0.8 pole 0.9
Por 1.6 pole 1.4
Jap 0.5 0.7 0.8
Aus 0.8 1.6 0.4

WDC table
1993 Alesi P6 16 points
1994 Berger P3 41 points
1995 Alesi P5 42 points

WCC table
1993 28 points P4
1994 71 points P3
1995 73 points P3

Podiums
1993 3
1994 11
1995 11

Laps lead
1993 19
1994 96
1995 113




#6306 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 05 October 2010 - 18:07

I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact, and one that can be recognised even by the likes of me who remain disgusted by some of Michael's on track antics. Don't make the oft repeated mistake of assuming that someone who dares to give someone credit is a support of that person - it's simply a case of having a balanced view.



Very possibly.



The thing is, often I do like your posts, and while not intending this latest discussion to be in any way personal I have to admit it has looked that way; what does grate on me in a major way is that you are permanently set on attempting to discredit Michael Schumacher in avery possible way; it's as if the man has done you some personal harm in the past, and that you now have a duty to put him down, to exact revenge. Some - many - of your posts are so determined to put across the darker picture that it's a bit like listening to the same record, over and over again, and nort a very good one at that. It shows up when you respond to someone - in this case myself - that Michael Schumacher was one of the biggest parts of the resurgence of Ferrari in the mid 90's; the thing is, he was, and there's no getting away from that. Why you can't just say 'yes, he was, but I still think he's a wanker' is beyond me.

Lifew12, good to know there are some good Hakkinen fans around here who do appreciate his chief rivals quality. I too am in the same boat, but unlike you, recently I have come to start liking Schumacher, especially with his never say die attitude even at this stage in his career. Lately, like you, I too have been accused by the likes of man of being a Schumacher fan, fanatic, worshipper etc. Infact anyone that says anything even in minor appreciation of MS is labelled here as a fanatic by the likes of some. I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.




#6307 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 05 October 2010 - 18:38

Lifew12, good to know there are some good Hakkinen fans around here who do appreciate his chief rivals quality. I too am in the same boat, but unlike you, recently I have come to start liking Schumacher, especially with his never say die attitude even at this stage in his career. Lately, like you, I too have been accused by the likes of man of being a Schumacher fan, fanatic, worshipper etc. Infact anyone that says anything even in minor appreciation of MS is labelled here as a fanatic by the likes of some. I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.


Nothing like a bit of camaraderie building and "us vs them" ;-)

Erm when did I "accuse" Lifew12 of being a fan of M Schumacher?

Another post of yours based upon pie in the sky. ;-)


#6308 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 23:33

I have no outstanding preferences among drivers in F1, although I must say that over the past fifteen years my loyalty has very much been with Mika Hakkinen and McLaren. My calling Michael a pivotal figure in the rise of Ferrari doesn't make me 'a fan' - it's simply a fact....


Ah, silently omitting the term absolutely pivotal figure... ;)

Tell you what, Lifew12, we both love René Arnoux. I met him only once at the Niki Lauda Show in early 1983 in Vienna, but he is a great small man with blazing eyes and enormous reflexes (when he was young), a real natural.


#6309 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 23:49

By recent I mean post turbo era i.e. 1989.

What is clear is that this is now a pretty tedious discussion. So my last post on this matter unless you have anthing interesting to add that is accurate rather than pie in the sky. ;-) This provides the facts in black and white that Ferrari were a team on the upwards trend. It should also be added that Ferrari stopped development of the V12 during the 1995 season.

Qual difference between fastest Ferrari and pole in 1993, 1994, 1995.

S.A 2.5
Brazil 3.4 1.4 0.8
Eur 2.4
San 2.7 0.6 0.1
Spa 3.9 1.7 0.6
Mon 1.8 1.4 1.2
Can 2.2 0.1 0.5
Fra 2.3 0.7 1.5
GB 4.1 0.1 1.5
Ger 2.5 pole 1.1
Hun 2.3 1.9 1.0
Bel 2.5 1.0 pole
Ita 0.8 pole 0.9
Por 1.6 pole 1.4
Jap 0.5 0.7 0.8
Aus 0.8 1.6 0.4

WDC table
1993 Alesi P6 16 points
1994 Berger P3 41 points
1995 Alesi P5 42 points

WCC table
1993 28 points P4
1994 71 points P3
1995 73 points P3

Podiums
1993 3
1994 11
1995 11

Laps lead
1993 19
1994 96
1995 113


Pretty clear and obvious, your stats, man. I can´t understand how anyone misses to see the tendency in these statistics. Clearly, Ferrari was a team on the upward rise since LdM set it into motion, and thanks to Willi Weber and Jean Todt Schumacher stepped into a train that was consistently gaining speed. When in 1997 Brawn and Byrne joined, the train gained the final acceleration that was needed to challenge for the WDC.

This apart from the fact that Michael by his Jerez 1997 antics destroyed the vice-championship that he and his team would have so amply deserved that year....

#6310 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 05 October 2010 - 23:55

....I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.


Guys, this is not the point here - why should anyone convince anyone else of his opinions and allegiances - people are allowed to have differing opinions in our civilization and the Atlas BB is a board where these different opinions can be expressed.

In true MS fashion I state that I am sorry if Lifew12 feels that I have not accepted his opinion or allegiance. I do accept his opinion, and I reserve the right to have my own differing opinion. As does man, as do you, SparkPlug.

So again, let us agree to disagree. What is so difficult about it?


#6311 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 06 October 2010 - 01:42

Pretty clear and obvious, your stats, man. I can´t understand how anyone misses to see the tendency in these statistics. Clearly, Ferrari was a team on the upward rise since LdM set it into motion, and thanks to Willi Weber and Jean Todt Schumacher stepped into a train that was consistently gaining speed. When in 1997 Brawn and Byrne joined, the train gained the final acceleration that was needed to challenge for the WDC.

This apart from the fact that Michael by his Jerez 1997 antics destroyed the vice-championship that he and his team would have so amply deserved that year....


So, from your post above, MS gets no credit - in fact you credit everyone but him LOL

#6312 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 October 2010 - 01:48

So, from your post above, MS gets no credit - in fact you credit everyone but him LOL


Fact is that Willi Weber and Jean Todt had to talk Michael into joining Ferrari - Michael was fancying a seat at Williams at the time. So go give some credit to his manager for bringing him to Ferrari. MS gets credit for driving all his races - 91 wins is testimony to that. Just stated that yesterday, shall I repeat myself every post?

Also, as you have obviously not read my last post in full, I wrote that he would have so amply deserved the vice-championship in 1997 (yet took it away from himself by his Jerez action).

Edited by aditya-now, 06 October 2010 - 01:50.


#6313 iakhtar

iakhtar
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 06 October 2010 - 02:23

96-99 were my favourite MS years, I do wonder what would have happened if he'd simply jumped into that Williams and then the McLaren, I mean what team boss wouldn't have signed him in a heartbeat. Potentially he could have had quite a few more championships by choosing the path of least resistance. Anyway, regardless of how large or small his role in the Ferrari revival I give him credit for taking the gamble and pulling it off.

#6314 slideways

slideways
  • Member

  • 3,309 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 06 October 2010 - 02:54

Anyone see Mark Hughes' latest article on the BBC? Utter tripe!

The driving style was a mere expression of a level of feel and balance - a miraculous combination of inner ear sensitivity to lateral accelerations and the co-ordination of that with his limbs - that was on a different level to anyone else's.



#6315 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 06 October 2010 - 03:32

Fact is that Willi Weber and Jean Todt had to talk Michael into joining Ferrari - Michael was fancying a seat at Williams at the time. So go give some credit to his manager for bringing him to Ferrari. MS gets credit for driving all his races - 91 wins is testimony to that. Just stated that yesterday, shall I repeat myself every post?

Also, as you have obviously not read my last post in full, I wrote that he would have so amply deserved the vice-championship in 1997 (yet took it away from himself by his Jerez action).


I don't need to read all your posts in full - you just repeat the same stuff again and again.. we know you dislike MS and he's a nothing driver.

#6316 Polle

Polle
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 October 2010 - 05:18

^^^^ Shhhhhhhh you gave away his secretzzz!!!

#6317 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 06 October 2010 - 07:01

96-99 were my favourite MS years, I do wonder what would have happened if he'd simply jumped into that Williams and then the McLaren, I mean what team boss wouldn't have signed him in a heartbeat. Potentially he could have had quite a few more championships by choosing the path of least resistance. Anyway, regardless of how large or small his role in the Ferrari revival I give him credit for taking the gamble and pulling it off.

didnt ron dennis try to sign schumacher a few times over the years

#6318 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 October 2010 - 08:29

Tell you what, Lifew12, we both love René Arnoux.


Indeed. Lovely bloke, met him at Goodwood a few years back (never really spoken to him before, oddly); that's the era when I was a 'Ferrari fan'; post that, it all seemed to be a bit 'lost' for me.

To Man, without wanting to prlong the discussion, but how did I know - beforehand, somehow - that my examples would not come into your category of 'recent'? Despite your table of numbers, you still miss the point about your historical turn of events: you miss the fact that it took Michael Schumacher going to Ferrari for Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne to do so. That, I would say, is a pretty important step in it all. Still, we're way off line here because - as someone pointed out - nowhere did I (or anyone else) state that Michael Schumacher was the only part of the equation; I simply accept that without him it wouldn;t have turned out quite how it did.

Finally, and to try and drum home a point that seems to be deliberately, and oddly, overlooked, back to aditya, who said:

"I am sorry if Lifew12 feels that I have not accepted his opinion or allegiance..."

I don't expect you to accept my opinion - life would be drab if we all had the same one, and these places empty - but I do wish you would drop the helpful, to your argument, belief that I have any 'allegiances'; I don't, I love motor racing, and Rene Arnoux has long since retired.

#6319 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 06 October 2010 - 08:39

.....unlike you, recently I have come to start liking Schumacher, especially with his never say die attitude even at this stage in his career.


It's interesting, isn't it? I hold the same view in a way; I wanted him to come back and be as good as he was before (and if his dearest enemies can't accept he was at least bloody good they have a problem) so that he could be measured up against the young guns. I'm disappointed he's turned out to be a bit of a disaster. I have sympathy for him as he, perhaps more than most, loves racing, and that's something I admire. For the record, I like the man - he's a sound guy who goes about his life quietly enough and does a lot of good work - but I just felt reviled by some of his on track antics (he's not alone in that - there are, and were, others for whom I felt the same way). This is in direct contrast to 'Our Nige' who I thought was just about the most horrible bloke in the business, a whingeing, whining little kid with a massive chip on his shoulder, but who could frequently be scintillating on track.


Lately, like you, I too have been accused by the likes of man of being a Schumacher fan, fanatic, worshipper etc. Infact anyone that says anything even in minor appreciation of MS is labelled here as a fanatic by the likes of some. I dont know why you're wasting your time trying to convince someone like 'man' of your opinions or allegiances. Talking to a brick wall will be more entertaining.


There is a great element of truth in this, and with no offence to anyone meant. In the recent thread about Ferrari/Germany/Team orders I put forward the opinion that enough was enough, they'd been punished, it wasn't as if they'd killed anyone, I'd rather see team orders on track than hidden by 'sticking wheels' at 'long pit stops' etc and was immediately met with a load o responses that assumed, because I wasn't calling for blood, I was a raging Ferrari fan. It's that sort of bollocks - that you can't have an opinion without having thse 'allegiances' - that bores me to tears on boards like these, and occasionally drives me to hammer the point home. This isn't play school - you don't have to love one driver/team and hate another, you can - really, it's true - watch them all and take on board great performances by him, poor efforts by them, and so and so. You can, it has been known, actually admit that a driver who races for a team you utterly despise - should you choose to be so glib - actually is pretty good. More people should try it.

Advertisement

#6320 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,194 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 06 October 2010 - 09:32

Nothing like a bit of camaraderie building and "us vs them" ;-)

Erm when did I "accuse" Lifew12 of being a fan of M Schumacher?

Another post of yours based upon pie in the sky. ;-)


Well I would saying that using terms such as "fanatics like yourself" or similarly worded statements are pretty divisive, wouldn't you say?

#6321 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,194 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 06 October 2010 - 09:43

Pretty clear and obvious, your stats, man. I can´t understand how anyone misses to see the tendency in these statistics. Clearly, Ferrari was a team on the upward rise since LdM set it into motion, and thanks to Willi Weber and Jean Todt Schumacher stepped into a train that was consistently gaining speed. When in 1997 Brawn and Byrne joined, the train gained the final acceleration that was needed to challenge for the WDC.

This apart from the fact that Michael by his Jerez 1997 antics destroyed the vice-championship that he and his team would have so amply deserved that year....



Aditya, the ingredients for success were there, sure;

Massive facilities
LDM at the helm
Massive purchasing power from FIAT money
Todt

....and the train was gathering momentum too. You are correct.

However, they still needed a driver that was capable of delivering consistently; Berger and Alesi were nearing the final years of their careers (Berger more so) while Alesi was anything but consistent. Elsewhere you had Hill (not really a leader IMO, but a great development driver), Hakkinen (loyal to Mclaren), DC (still raw and unproven), Villeneuve (complete novice or a non factor), Irvine (intelligent, fun, great tester but no leader).

Schumacher was the link that synthesise all the factors together IMO and deliver in a way that others could not do. Brawn and Byrne were the final catalysts to bring about the Ferrari resurgence.

I personally can't think of another driver who could deliver what Ferrari wanted; a WDC for the first time since 1979 other than Schumacher. If you take Schumacher, Brawn and Bryne out of the equation (I see them all being inter-linked with another as the formula and familiarity was already there), I think Ferrari's gradual ascent would have plateaued and that championship would still have eluded them.

In short, I don't believe any other driver - aside from Schumacher - would have given them such unparalleled success. The culmination of Schumacher-Todt-Brawn-Bryne can still be seen today in the way Ferrari develop, approach and run their F1 team. That is their legacy.



All in my humble opinion of course.

Edited by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001, 06 October 2010 - 10:31.


#6322 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,604 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 06 October 2010 - 20:35

It would be instructive and interesting (and therefore aditya won't do it) to look at a comparison of teams who achieve the modest degree of success Ferrari attained pre-1996 with teams who achieve the greater degree of success they attained beginning in 1996. What you will find is that many many teams attain the former, but stepping up to the latter is exponentially harder..

How many teams have we seen score regular podiums, the occasional pole and even win, good solid points.. but never go anywhere from there?

And how many have become long term regular championship contenders, to the point where it is simply assumed that they will be involved in the race for first place, and where failing to win the championship is considerd a failure?

#6323 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 06 October 2010 - 22:58

It would be instructive and interesting (and therefore aditya won't do it) to look at a comparison of teams who achieve the modest degree of success Ferrari attained pre-1996 with teams who achieve the greater degree of success they attained beginning in 1996. What you will find is that many many teams attain the former, but stepping up to the latter is exponentially harder..

How many teams have we seen score regular podiums, the occasional pole and even win, good solid points.. but never go anywhere from there?

And how many have become long term regular championship contenders, to the point where it is simply assumed that they will be involved in the race for first place, and where failing to win the championship is considerd a failure?


Instructive perhaps, interesting? Not really. It's fairly obvious in order to be a top team over a longer period you need a top team of staff. ;-)

#6324 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 October 2010 - 23:27

I don't need to read all your posts in full - you just repeat the same stuff again and again.. we know you dislike MS and he's a nothing driver.


Thanks for your consideration and differentiation. I will also start reading posts of others to whom I answer incompletely - an excellent basis for a discussion. Makes it quite comfortable...

#6325 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 October 2010 - 23:35

I don't expect you to accept my opinion - life would be drab if we all had the same one, and these places empty - but I do wish you would drop the helpful, to your argument, belief that I have any 'allegiances'; I don't, I love motor racing, and Rene Arnoux has long since retired.



Fine, so let´s end it here - I have to say the Ferrari years from 1982 till 1988 I just loved (Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux (these three!!!), Tambay, Alboreto, Johanson, Berger - these were great years and great cars. Mansell (Il leone) in 1989 and 1990 was still great, Prost did not really fit as a Ferrari driver (bringing his type of politics into the team did not work) and it went downwards. Alesi again fitted seamlessly with Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux, Alboreto and Berger.

So all in all Ferrari had a great bunch of drivers, Prost, Schumacher, Barrichello and Raikkonen being not the typical Ferrari drivers. The tide has turned, Massa is a real Ferrari driver, Alonso is as well. The team is Italian again, not an international super group.


#6326 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 October 2010 - 23:39

Aditya, the ingredients for success were there, sure;

Massive facilities
LDM at the helm
Massive purchasing power from FIAT money
Todt

....and the train was gathering momentum too. You are correct.

However, they still needed a driver that was capable of delivering consistently; Berger and Alesi were nearing the final years of their careers (Berger more so) while Alesi was anything but consistent. Elsewhere you had Hill (not really a leader IMO, but a great development driver), Hakkinen (loyal to Mclaren), DC (still raw and unproven), Villeneuve (complete novice or a non factor), Irvine (intelligent, fun, great tester but no leader).

Schumacher was the link that synthesise all the factors together IMO and deliver in a way that others could not do. Brawn and Byrne were the final catalysts to bring about the Ferrari resurgence.


That´s all very fair and I can fully agree with it. You have put if perfectly. :up: Without the final touches of Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne that "era Ferrari" would never have materialized. What I objected to was the myth that Michael singlehandedly delivered Ferrari from the doldrums.


#6327 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 06 October 2010 - 23:57

It would be instructive and interesting (and therefore aditya won't do it) to look at a comparison of teams who achieve the modest degree of success Ferrari attained pre-1996 with teams who achieve the greater degree of success they attained beginning in 1996. What you will find is that many many teams attain the former, but stepping up to the latter is exponentially harder..

How many teams have we seen score regular podiums, the occasional pole and even win, good solid points.. but never go anywhere from there?

And how many have become long term regular championship contenders, to the point where it is simply assumed that they will be involved in the race for first place, and where failing to win the championship is considerd a failure?



Instructive perhaps, interesting? Not really. It's fairly obvious in order to be a top team over a longer period you need a top team of staff. ;-)


Lotus (started modestly, then, with Jim Clark, attained star power), Ferrari (rose already in the Lauda years like phoenix from the ashes), McLaren (brought back to the top by Ron Dennis after modest showings in the end of the 70s) and Williams (came to the top in 1979 after modest beginnings) are the teams who have done it, historically.

These four teams all managed to be dominantly successful for up to two decades (Lotus in the 60s, 70s; Ferrari in the 90s, 2000s, McLaren in the 80s, 90s, Williams in the 80s, 90s), but longer than that seems impossible, there is always the odd hiatus like Ferrari in the end of 60s, beginning of 70s as well as beginning of the 90s, McLaren in the mid 90s, Williams in the later 2000s, Lotus after Chapmann died and Senna left).

If Alonso manages to steer the Ferrari boat to continued success for the next years, then Ferrari will be the first team in history to go for longer than 20 years in the top echelon - well, he would have to prolong that period of success of Ferrari until up to 2016....

Schumacher for sure could not prolong it in his present form and he was not the first to bring Ferrari back on track, Niki Lauda was, 20 years earlier - as man stated, it is obvious that you need a top team of staff. One driver alone, even if his name is Michael Schumacher, cannot do it.

So I am not sure which point baddog wanted to make, if there was indeed any point other than trying to tickle me.... :lol:

#6328 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 07 October 2010 - 08:28

Fine, so let´s end it here - I have to say the Ferrari years from 1982 till 1988 I just loved (Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux (these three!!!), Tambay, Alboreto, Johanson, Berger - these were great years and great cars. Mansell (Il leone) in 1989 and 1990 was still great, Prost did not really fit as a Ferrari driver (bringing his type of politics into the team did not work) and it went downwards. Alesi again fitted seamlessly with Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux, Alboreto and Berger.

So all in all Ferrari had a great bunch of drivers, Prost, Schumacher, Barrichello and Raikkonen being not the typical Ferrari drivers. The tide has turned, Massa is a real Ferrari driver, Alonso is as well. The team is Italian again, not an international super group.


I agree. I think the reason you - and I - see the latter group as not being 'typical' Ferrari drivers is because the team, in those years, was not the 'typical Ferrari'. The old romance, the inherent chaos, the over-riding influence of the Old Man himself had gone; it had become a corporate team, another manufacturer in the mix, and it lost that allure - to me, at least. Unfortunately, I can't agree with you that it is any different now - although while I see Massa as a Ferrari man through and through, Alonso is, as far as I'm concerned, a professional racing driver who will go where the winning car and the best resources are. That is, of course, what he should do.

#6329 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 08:37

Can we all go back to the topic, which is missing in last 4-5 pages? If there isn't something to write about the topic, then don't write. Don't make it here like Messenger. You have personal messages for this. Don't make all other to suffer with you history flashes. Ferrari,Alonso,Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux, Alboreto and Berger,Lotus in the 60s, 70s; Ferrari in the 90s, 2000s, McLaren in the 80s, 90s, Williams in the 80s, 90s ?????? :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:

Edited by ivand911, 07 October 2010 - 08:43.


#6330 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,604 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 07 October 2010 - 09:10

They just took selectred quotes from that interview the other day and made up a story around it..

Good old Bild..

#6331 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 07 October 2010 - 09:35

Can we all go back to the topic, which is missing in last 4-5 pages? If there isn't something to write about the topic, then don't write. Don't make it here like Messenger. You have personal messages for this. Don't make all other to suffer with you history flashes. Ferrari,Alonso,Villeneuve, Pironi, Arnoux, Alboreto and Berger,Lotus in the 60s, 70s; Ferrari in the 90s, 2000s, McLaren in the 80s, 90s, Williams in the 80s, 90s ?????? :down: :down: :down: :down: :down: :down:


Maybe we found those topics somewhat more interesting - I certainly do.....

Back to the topic; right, how will Michael announce his retirement at the end of this year?

#6332 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 07 October 2010 - 09:39

Back to the topic; right, how will Michael announce his retirement at the end of this year?

the same press conference where Mika Hakkinen will anounce his comeback

#6333 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 07 October 2010 - 10:44

the same press conference where Mika Hakkinen will anounce his comeback


So he's never going to retire?

#6334 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 11:12

So he's never going to retire?

He will retire don't worry. I think he is German citizen and they have some age for retiring(maybe 60).
http://img541.images...1286425222.jpg/
http://motorsport.ne...7oct/045wri.jpg
http://motorsport.ne...7oct/060wri.jpg
http://motorsport.ne...7oct/038wri.jpg
http://cache.daylife...2yj5co/610x.jpg
http://cache.daylife...0Ok1Ab/610x.jpg
http://photofile.ru/...4844/120637465/
http://photofile.ru/...4844/120640864/
http://photofile.ru/.../#mainImageLink
http://motorsport.ne...7oct/006wri.jpg
http://motorsport.ne...7oct/065wri.jpg
http://img46.imagesh...1286421622.jpg/

Edited by ivand911, 07 October 2010 - 11:37.


#6335 Johnrambo

Johnrambo
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 07 October 2010 - 11:31

the same press conference where Mika Hakkinen will anounce his comeback


Mika is not coming back.

#6336 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 11:33

Aditya, the ingredients for success were there, sure;

Massive facilities
LDM at the helm
Massive purchasing power from FIAT money
Todt

....and the train was gathering momentum too. You are correct.

However, they still needed a driver that was capable of delivering consistently; Berger and Alesi were nearing the final years of their careers (Berger more so) while Alesi was anything but consistent. Elsewhere you had Hill (not really a leader IMO, but a great development driver), Hakkinen (loyal to Mclaren), DC (still raw and unproven), Villeneuve (complete novice or a non factor), Irvine (intelligent, fun, great tester but no leader).

Schumacher was the link that synthesise all the factors together IMO and deliver in a way that others could not do. Brawn and Byrne were the final catalysts to bring about the Ferrari resurgence.

I personally can't think of another driver who could deliver what Ferrari wanted; a WDC for the first time since 1979 other than Schumacher. If you take Schumacher, Brawn and Bryne out of the equation (I see them all being inter-linked with another as the formula and familiarity was already there), I think Ferrari's gradual ascent would have plateaued and that championship would still have eluded them.

In short, I don't believe any other driver - aside from Schumacher - would have given them such unparalleled success. The culmination of Schumacher-Todt-Brawn-Bryne can still be seen today in the way Ferrari develop, approach and run their F1 team. That is their legacy.



All in my humble opinion of course.



You've pretty much summed up what a poor era it was for talent once the true greats had departed, and why schumacher found the last 6 years, with the arrival of Alonso, so empty.
His own father advised him to retire when someone better came along, which he did. Why an earth he though he could challenge Alonso, but this time as a winner, let alone Hamilton, is beyond me.
For all his strong points, he was never going to do a Mansell.

#6337 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 11:40

You've pretty much summed up what a poor era it was for talent once the true greats had departed, and why schumacher found the last 6 years, with the arrival of Alonso, so empty.
His own father advised him to retire when someone better came along, which he did. Why an earth he though he could challenge Alonso, but this time as a winner, let alone Hamilton, is beyond me.
For all his strong points, he was never going to do a Mansell.

yea cos now we have the webbers , heidfield , petrov , hulkenberg , de la rosa , kova , kbayashi , button , massa etc zomg wesome talented lineup of super drivers.

people like to pretend f1 is filled with all this talent.

lets face it webber was never considered nothing more than "good" what does this say for vettel? other than the RB is an epic car...

button was never really that impressive even rubens gave him a fight , for the first time in rubens career he must have felt alive. :rotfl:

apart from schumacher , alonso & hamilton theres nothing which could be considered a true awesome sauce talent on the grid.

one might be passed it already , another probably doesnt have much more drive left and the last one still has to improve a bit and start finishing races

#6338 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 07 October 2010 - 11:47

apart from schumacher , alonso & hamilton theres nothing which could be considered a true awesome sauce talent on the grid.


Whether you can consider Schumacher a 'true awesome talent' anymore is an ongoing theme in this thread. He was once, without a doubt, but now he's lagging behind Rosberg, and I doubt you consider him a 'true awesome talent'. I thing you're gith about Hamilton but I would safely reckon Alonso has plenty of years left in him - correct me if i'm wrong, but he's still teh low side of 30!

Edited by Lifew12, 07 October 2010 - 11:49.


#6339 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,386 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 07 October 2010 - 11:50

You've pretty much summed up what a poor era it was for talent once the true greats had departed, and why Schumacher found the last 6 years, with the arrival of Alonso, so empty.
His own father advised him to retire when someone better came along, which he did. Why an earth he though he could challenge Alonso, but this time as a winner, let alone Hamilton, is beyond me.
For all his strong points, he was never going to do a Mansell.



Oh please i am sick of this nonsense about how bad the talent was when Schumacher was at his peak.

The talent this year is so overrated IMO If Hakkinen or Schumacher were driving this years Red Bull at there peak they would of won the championship by now.

People go on about how consistent these drivers are this year when really they are anything but.

Advertisement

#6340 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:15

People go on about how consistent these drivers are this year when really they are anything but.


It's an intersting point you make there ( and I'm not one to believe that there was no talent around in the Schumacher/Hakkinen era) and it may be somewhat contradictory; surely we have fine drivers who have been pretty consistent - relative to each other - and that's one reason why there is a close fight for the title?

#6341 Polle

Polle
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:25

You often get the argument that the driver's during Schumacher's prime were no good, compared to this current crop. I always believed that it was the car that exaggerated how the drivers are perceived. How quickly a top tier car could disappear into the distance during the 90's was insane compared to now.

#6342 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:31

I agree. I think the reason you - and I - see the latter group as not being 'typical' Ferrari drivers is because the team, in those years, was not the 'typical Ferrari'. The old romance, the inherent chaos, the over-riding influence of the Old Man himself had gone; it had become a corporate team, another manufacturer in the mix, and it lost that allure - to me, at least. Unfortunately, I can't agree with you that it is any different now - although while I see Massa as a Ferrari man through and through, Alonso is, as far as I'm concerned, a professional racing driver who will go where the winning car and the best resources are. That is, of course, what he should do.


To me, Ferrari is halfway back to the original "chaotic" hotblooded and very Italian Ferrari since 2008. Todt gone made a telling influence.

I agree, Massa is a Ferrari man through and through, and, although Alonso is a professional racing driver, he is red through and through as well, now, that they are not his enemy team anymore. His heart breathes Ferrari, the "passione" will leave its marks on his Spanish heart.

Michael never had that passione, he did not breathe Ferrari but he and Weber used the Scuderia as a platform for their success in the sport and in merchandising as well.


Oh please i am sick of this nonsense about how bad the talent was when Schumacher was at his peak.

The talent this year is so overrated IMO If Hakkinen or Schumacher were driving this years Red Bull at there peak they would of won the championship by now.

People go on about how consistent these drivers are this year when really they are anything but.


These drivers are more consistent than Michael Schumacher at least. Or, seen from another perspective, no one is driving as consistently bad as Schumacher.

We can laugh about the BILD "interview" - good old BILD indeed. Yet, they have always been seismographic and the tide is turning in Germany what concerns Schumacher. He does not have limitless time on his hands anymore - he will be gone sooner than some here on the BB might wish.


#6343 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:33

How quickly a top tier car could disappear into the distance during the 90's was insane compared to now.


How quickly Rosberg disappeared into the distance from Schumacher in the same car in Singapore was indeed insane.


#6344 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:36

Alonso is a professional racing driver, he is red through and through as well, now, that they are not his enemy team anymore. His heart breathes Ferrari, the "passione" will leave its marks on his Spanish heart.


mmm, I can't see it, I'm afraid! Put it this way - had Alonso met anyone other than Hamilton at Mclaren he would still be there now.

#6345 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:42

mmm, I can't see it, I'm afraid! Put it this way - had Alonso met anyone other than Hamilton at Mclaren he would still be there now.


You are right concerning having stayed at McLaren, but I think he really enjoys his time at the Scuderia and has become more of a Ferrari driver in the classic mould than Michael Schumacher ever was.


#6346 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:44

Oh please i am sick of this nonsense about how bad the talent was when Schumacher was at his peak.

The talent this year is so overrated IMO If Hakkinen or Schumacher were driving this years Red Bull at there peak they would of won the championship by now.


Schumacher competed for titles, against the following team pairings, Hill/Coulthard , Hakkinen/Coulthard, Villeneuve/Frentzen.

Hill and Hakkinen his greatest rivals. No wonder Alonso found it easy once he got a reasonable car.


:lol:



#6347 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:49

How quickly Rosberg disappeared into the distance from Schumacher in the same car in Singapore was indeed insane.

If you were watching the race you can clearly see that Barichello was slowing him down until the moment Webber pass Michael. Webber pass him because Michael rear tyres were gone, he slide so bad in the corner like Koba lap before which help Webber very much. But good try by you, like always . :wave: At least you are on the topic.

Edited by ivand911, 07 October 2010 - 12:50.


#6348 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:52

Schumacher competed for titles, against the following team pairings, Hill/Coulthard , Hakkinen/Coulthard, Villeneuve/Frentzen.

Hill and Hakkinen his greatest rivals. No wonder Alonso found it easy once he got a reasonable car.


:lol:

And much better tyres in 2005. :rotfl:


#6349 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:53

If you were watching the race you can clearly see that Barichello was slowing him down until the moment Webber pass Michael. Webber pass him because Michael rear tyres were gone, he slide so bad in the corner like Koba lap before which help Webber very much. But good try by you, like always . :wave:


So Barrichello was holding Schumacher up until Webber passed Schumi? How on earth did Schumacher get stuck behind Barrichello? Why was Rosberg not stuck behind Barrichello?
:up:


Greetings, Ivan, did miss you the last few days! :wave:

I will be in Bulgaria again from November 4th till 7th, Sofia, Varna and Plovdiv. Always nice to be in your country, not all there are Schumacher fans, by the way. ;)


#6350 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,161 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 12:56

And much better tyres in 2005. :rotfl:


Yes, the tyre excuse is nothing new in 2010, it started already in 2005. In my reckoning Schumacher had retired inwardly the moment things were not as easy for him anymore as in 2004. 2006 was a last remnant of his previous capacity, but Fernando´s driving spirit emasculated him then and there, not even the FIA could help Michael´s 2006 campaign....