Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#6351 DontPanic

DontPanic
  • Member

  • 150 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 07 October 2010 - 20:18

You have this discussion 2-3 days ago. For now it is proven fact that only Michael did it. Everything else is speculation. I also doubt that other driver starting from 1996 like Michael in Ferrari could do it. Especially without Brawn and Bourne from Benetton. I think they(Ferrari+ this driver) can achieve better result than Alessi and Berger, but not such huge success. But, I can't bet about the last one. Now, lets sleep we have FP1/FP2 early in the morning. :)


Well, as a starting point Schumacher had pretty much the same baseline as Mansell and Prost. Mansell dragged the Ferrari to 4th in his first year, and Prost to 2nd. Schumacher slotted in between in 3rd. I would suggest that saying that ONLY Schumacher could have done this is rather silly.

As another point, this is all relying on the previous year where the car came 3rd in the WCC for both Prost and Schumacher. In the year before Alonso joined, Ferrari came 4th, yet so far he has 4 wins with 4 races still to go, yet Schumacher managed only 3 wins in the entire year, and Prost managed 5. All from a better starting point than this year.



Advertisement

#6352 Villes Gilleneuve

Villes Gilleneuve
  • Member

  • 2,248 posts
  • Joined: April 08

Posted 07 October 2010 - 20:28

Thanks for the link, cheapracer, remarkable article.

I think they all should come back: Mika Hakkinen, Ralf Schumacher and David Coulthard. Together with Michael Schumacher they will show the young drivers of today what F1 racing really is all about! :up:


talentless nepotism?

Ralf and Dave are booming in DTM.

#6353 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 23:12

talentless nepotism?

Ralf and Dave are booming in DTM.



You are right, here in Germany they are venerated like Gods! They score the odd 10th or 14th place in DTM :lol:

#6354 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 24,040 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 07 October 2010 - 23:40

In response to responses to me, I merely noted that the mere fact of the team achieving minor success before 1996 does nothing to minimise the achievement from there on, which was absolutely huge. The minor success is a necessary precursor to dominance, to be sure, but whats important is that it is not in any way an indicator or a guarantee of it.

Some other groups at teams have of course gone on to achieve that great success.. and they too deserve the plaudits for that. The problem here is that people do not wish to give any, let alone sufficient, credit where it is due in that one case. Everyone else can have credit, but Michael was just a lucky passenger? I dont think so. He was a leader, a focus, a point of consistent excellence and achievement that both attracted great people and gave the team spirit and a basis on which to build. They knew that if they provided the car then he WOULD bring the wins and championships, and that is worth more than is being acknowledged.

Also while some examples given here were impressive, some were less so. Mansell and Prost went to Ferrari and with them achieved some success, but it was not sustained and with it they brought problems on many levels, and eventually had a destructive effect long term. That is not the case with Michael at Ferrari.

#6355 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 07 October 2010 - 23:55

In response to responses to me, I merely noted that the mere fact of the team achieving minor success before 1996 does nothing to minimise the achievement from there on, which was absolutely huge. The minor success is a necessary precursor to dominance, to be sure, but whats important is that it is not in any way an indicator or a guarantee of it.

Some other groups at teams have of course gone on to achieve that great success.. and they too deserve the plaudits for that. The problem here is that people do not wish to give any, let alone sufficient, credit where it is due in that one case. Everyone else can have credit, but Michael was just a lucky passenger? I dont think so. He was a leader, a focus, a point of consistent excellence and achievement that both attracted great people and gave the team spirit and a basis on which to build. They knew that if they provided the car then he WOULD bring the wins and championships, and that is worth more than is being acknowledged.

Also while some examples given here were impressive, some were less so. Mansell and Prost went to Ferrari and with them achieved some success, but it was not sustained and with it they brought problems on many levels, and eventually had a destructive effect long term. That is not the case with Michael at Ferrari.


In response to responses to responses to me, the minor success of Ferrari pre-Schumacher can indeed be ignored. It was only the most successful team of all time before Schumacher and still is.

Mansell/Prost have not been mentioned by me, your mentioning them serves to lead away from the original discussion, as you well know. Also you refrain from naming Lotus, Williams and McLaren as well as the other two great eras of Ferrari, as suits your argument. I notice your sharp wit and congratulate you on it. Still, it is just dodging the argument.

Schumacher was the lead driver of the third major period in Ferrari´s success, the first having been Alberto Ascari (and consequently Fangio), the second Niki Lauda (consequently Scheckter). The difference is that in the 50s and even 70s F1 drivers did not have such longevity like in the 90s and 2000s, nor was there in the 50s such an enormous amount of GPs per season, so that relativates the look at the statistics. Death was around the corner at every other weekend and seasons had 7 or 8 races only.

While Schumacher has been the lead driver of the 3rd great era of Ferrari and deserves all credit for it, he had also an international super team around himself (unlike Ascari and Lauda), that had been build up and financed step by step by Luca di Montezemolo, so all these factors together meant that Schumacher could enjoy success unequalled to anything else in the history of the sport. I am sure that this fact has not escaped you.

#6356 scheivlak

scheivlak
  • Member

  • 12,530 posts
  • Joined: August 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 00:02

Also while some examples given here were impressive, some were less so. Mansell and Prost went to Ferrari and with them achieved some success, but it was not sustained and with it they brought problems on many levels, and eventually had a destructive effect long term. That is not the case with Michael at Ferrari.

What do you call "a destructive effect long term"?
Prost almost brought Ferrari the title in 1990 and left Ferrari at the end of the 1991 season. By the time we should be talking about long term effects of the Prost/Mansell era Ferrari was already on the way up and offered Michael contract.
But I don't think that is what you meant by mentioning a destructive effect ;)

In reality, the chain of events and developments was quite different. In 1991 Ferrari failed miserably, but certainly not in the first place because of their drivers. 1992 only showed how right Alain was in leaving the team. Just like Jean Todt showed how right Luca was in appointing him as a team boss after that dreadful year.
Without Jean in control, I don't think that Michael would have thought a second about joining the Scuderia. And with Michael, the team finally got from strength to strength.

Edited by scheivlak, 08 October 2010 - 00:03.


#6357 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 00:05

In response to responses to me, I merely noted that the mere fact of the team achieving minor success before 1996 does nothing to minimise the achievement from there on, which was absolutely huge. The minor success is a necessary precursor to dominance, to be sure, but whats important is that it is not in any way an indicator or a guarantee of it.

Some other groups at teams have of course gone on to achieve that great success.. and they too deserve the plaudits for that. The problem here is that people do not wish to give any, let alone sufficient, credit where it is due in that one case. Everyone else can have credit, but Michael was just a lucky passenger? I dont think so. He was a leader, a focus, a point of consistent excellence and achievement that both attracted great people and gave the team spirit and a basis on which to build. They knew that if they provided the car then he WOULD bring the wins and championships, and that is worth more than is being acknowledged.

Also while some examples given here were impressive, some were less so. Mansell and Prost went to Ferrari and with them achieved some success, but it was not sustained and with it they brought problems on many levels, and eventually had a destructive effect long term. That is not the case with Michael at Ferrari.


When the likes of Mansell and Prost were at Ferrari they did everything that was expected of them as drivers. The difference between their time at Maranello and M Schumacher is that they had a nutter in the form of Cesare Fiorio as team manager while the hierarchy of Ferrari was a shambles at best. LdM was recruited in Novemeber 1991 - too late to make an impact for Ferraris on track performances for 1992 but the upward spiral the team went on from 1993 onwards is clear for all to see. M Schumacher was a driver that reaped the rewards of the strategic vision of LdM. Of course, giving credit to the people that are making the calls behind the scenes doesn't make for tabloid headlines for the simpletons so the tendency to heap praise on M Schumacher in particular is understandable. LdM transformed Ferrari with his strategic decisions just as Ron Dennis did for McLaren when he took control of what was a mess at McLaren. Put M Schumacher in a average team and he isn't all that is he? ;-)

A seriously talented driver can make the difference now and again but to sustain a thread for a decade requires top management first and foremost.

#6358 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 October 2010 - 02:39



Solid showing by Michael in FP1 at Suzuka, one tenth ahead of Nico. He loves this track, so let´s see if he can keep it up...

Edited by aditya-now, 08 October 2010 - 02:52.


#6359 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 08 October 2010 - 03:14

I seriously doubt that Hakkinen - fan as I am - would have had the same ability thanks to a more lackadaisical approach, and we know from the BAR debacle that Villeneuve did not have it either.

I don't think it's so much a 'theory' that Michael was the only one who could have pulled it off - it's a historically proven fact; he did it, and we all watched it happen.
Without him, Ferrari certainly would not have pulled off what they did.


Time warp allowing I think only Nelson Piquet and Mika could have matched the feat. Senna just wanted the fastest car, he would have jumped ship to McLaren in '98 when his 2 year contract was up.

It's not just about driving ability, it takes something special to stay with a team for 10 years as well - you have to get along and Prost for example proved that he didn't have that ability as falling outs with Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams well proves.

MS's special isn't just about the driving, 10 years and a completely happy team and continuous car/team development over that period is something very unique and will probably never happen again ever (although theres an outside chance Hamilton may achieve it).

How many of you are happy working the same job and boss for just 2 or 3 years?

Wait till some of you nay sayers are Granddads and with little Johnny on your knee telling about how you watched the great Michael Schumacher race when you can finally see the forest past the trees.

Advertisement

#6360 marchi-91

marchi-91
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 08 October 2010 - 03:27

Solid showing by Michael in FP1 at Suzuka, one tenth ahead of Nico. He loves this track, so let´s see if he can keep it up...



I think it will be the same as most tracks Michael has been better at but Rosberg will probably beat him through some stupid pit call.

#6361 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,303 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 04:14

I think it will be the same as most tracks Michael has been better at but Rosberg will probably beat him through some stupid pit call.


Or more likely by just driving faster and having less crashes. ;-)

#6362 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 05:34

He was a leader, a focus, a point of consistent excellence and achievement that both attracted great people and gave the team spirit and a basis on which to build. They knew that if they provided the car then he WOULD bring the wins and championships, and that is worth more than is being acknowledged.

I am sure every team knows that if they provide their drivers with the right car, they would win. But it is not that easy to do that.
Michael and a leader? I thought Jean Todt was that, but I guess I was mistaken and it was really Chewmie sitting in Todt`s office 13 hours a day, while Todt was at the beach. Or is the "michael went to the factory and said 2 good words to all the guys working there every month" suddenly leadership?

Wait till some of you nay sayers are Granddads and with little Johnny on your knee telling about how you watched the great Michael Schumacher race when you can finally see the forest past the trees.

In that case I will give the full truths about what kind of a person schumacher was and especially put attention to the 2010 season where Mighty Michael sure has shown his greatness :rotfl:


I think it will be the same as most tracks Michael has been better at but Rosberg will probably beat him through some stupid pit call.

:rotfl:
Which tracks has michael been better than Rosberg at? Spain? Where else? Nowhere. One race in the whole of the season.


#6363 marchi-91

marchi-91
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 08 October 2010 - 06:13

I am sure every team knows that if they provide their drivers with the right car, they would win. But it is not that easy to do that.
Michael and a leader? I thought Jean Todt was that, but I guess I was mistaken and it was really Chewmie sitting in Todt`s office 13 hours a day, while Todt was at the beach. Or is the "michael went to the factory and said 2 good words to all the guys working there every month" suddenly leadership?

In that case I will give the full truths about what kind of a person schumacher was and especially put attention to the 2010 season where Mighty Michael sure has shown his greatness :rotfl:


:rotfl:
Which tracks has michael been better than Rosberg at? Spain? Where else? Nowhere. One race in the whole of the season.


Australia, Monaco, Turkey, Valencia, Hungary and Spa

Edited by marchi-91, 08 October 2010 - 06:13.


#6364 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 08 October 2010 - 06:41

Australia, Monaco, Turkey, Valencia, Hungary and Spa



All is wrong except Spain, the one you forgot.

#6365 marchi-91

marchi-91
  • Member

  • 440 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 08 October 2010 - 06:57

All is wrong except Spain, the one you forgot.


sure. Of course since Michael is up on Rosberg here thus far you don't have much to go on do you :lol: :lol:

#6366 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 06:57

Australia, Monaco, Turkey, Valencia, Hungary and Spa

:rotfl:
No, no, no, no, no and no.



#6367 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 06:58

sure. Of course since Michael is up on Rosberg here thus far you don't have much to go on do you :lol: :lol:

:rotfl: :rotfl: That is all you schumacher fans have these days, FP results.
In any case, what does todays FP result have to do with your claims that were obviously far from reality?

#6368 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:06

Well, as a starting point Schumacher had pretty much the same baseline as Mansell and Prost. Mansell dragged the Ferrari to 4th in his first year, and Prost to 2nd. Schumacher slotted in between in 3rd. I would suggest that saying that ONLY Schumacher could have done this is rather silly.

As another point, this is all relying on the previous year where the car came 3rd in the WCC for both Prost and Schumacher. In the year before Alonso joined, Ferrari came 4th, yet so far he has 4 wins with 4 races still to go, yet Schumacher managed only 3 wins in the entire year, and Prost managed 5. All from a better starting point than this year.

What Mansell and Prost achieve at Ferrari. They kick out the last one if I remember correctly. And Ferrari after 97/98 was never like the car from 1996. I remember car parts falling from the car, back then in 1996?

Edited by ivand911, 08 October 2010 - 07:28.


#6369 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:14

Australia, Monaco, Turkey, Valencia, Hungary and Spa

Yes,yes,yes,yes, no, 0,5yes. Today good FP from the man of the topic title. He was quick with heavy car. Hope they don't have SS tyres again.


#6370 Ross Stonefeld

Ross Stonefeld
  • Member

  • 59,194 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:14

Eh? Ferrari 96 were better than Ferrari 2010?

#6371 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 07:36

Eh? Ferrari 96 were better than Ferrari 2010?

Not, according to me. But, somebody(DontPanic) think that you can compare them. But, maybe according to Michael, 1996 car is not the worst car he drove in F1. :)

Edited by ivand911, 08 October 2010 - 07:41.


#6372 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 October 2010 - 08:35

The difference is that in the 50s and even 70s F1 drivers did not have such longevity like in the 90s and 2000s, nor was there in the 50s such an enormous amount of GPs per season, so that relativates the look at the statistics. Death was around the corner at every other weekend and seasons had 7 or 8 races only.


Not quite; there were many more than seven or eigght Grand prix in a season, but not all of them counted for the world championship for drivers. Full works efforts were still entered, however. If you count these in, and they shouldbe counted, the statistics begin to look somewhat different.


While Schumacher has been the lead driver of the 3rd great era of Ferrari and deserves all credit for it, he had also an international super team around himself (unlike Ascari and Lauda), that had been build up and financed step by step by Luca di Montezemolo,


That's rubbish; in the Ascari days the Ferrari team was just about the most professional in the sport, and in the 70's had teh very best personnel available.

so all these factors together meant that Schumacher could enjoy success unequalled to anything else in the history of the sport. I am sure that this fact has not escaped you.


Of course, but the fact you're not mentioning is that he wasn't the only driver to have driven in an era when all those factors came together; he was the only one to win seven titles.


#6373 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,814 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 08 October 2010 - 08:58

Everyone appears to be forgetting Monaco. He was faster than Nico the entire weekend but for a stupid call in qualifying for the cars to run too close together and then that...erm...arguable penalty in the race.




#6374 JackTorrance

JackTorrance
  • Member

  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:21

Damn. Not motivated/way past it shumi looked right on it vs glory boy, the second coming himself britney rosberg.

Im sure its because of the huge bias inside the mercedes gp garages towards shumi.



#6375 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:22

Everyone appears to be forgetting Monaco. He was faster than Nico the entire weekend but for a stupid call in qualifying for the cars to run too close together and then that...erm...arguable penalty in the race.

i wouldnt waste your breath they know the facts but choose to ignore them to serve their own purpose which isnt to have inteligent discussion

#6376 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:23

Schumacher encouraged by Friday form

By Pablo Elizalde Friday, October 8th 2010, 08:15 GMT

Michael Schumacher was encouraged by his car's pace in practice for the Japanese Grand Prix, the Mercedes driver admitting it was stronger than expected.

Schumacher posted the eighth quickest time of the day in the afternoon, having finished in the same position in the morning.

"I'm pleased with our practice today as the car looks better than I had expected here and I didn't face any real issues," said Schumacher

"So now we hope for a clean qualifying tomorrow where we will try to achieve as much as we can."

#6377 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 3,284 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:28

i wouldnt waste your breath they know the facts but choose to ignore them to serve their own purpose which isnt to have inteligent discussion


Agreed.

Remember no matter what. There will be a reason for why Schumacher beats Rosberg, if it's FP - it's only FP. If it's the race, Nico had issues. If it's scrabble, Schumacher got lucky with the letters. It's an utterly pointless challenge.

You have to understand these guys who dislike Schumacher have had to put up with seasons of Schumacher utterly dominating and 5 years in a row of Championships... they've gone absolutely insane watching that and the only thing they have now is an off come back season and they're milking it for everything it's wroth, milking it to death. They need this moment, so let them have it, ha!

#6378 JackTorrance

JackTorrance
  • Member

  • 2,065 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:31

You have to understand these guys who dislike Schumacher have had to put up with seasons of Schumacher utterly dominating and 5 years in a row of Championships... they've gone absolutely insane watching that and the only thing they have now is an off come back season and they're milking it for everything it's wroth, milking it to death. They need this moment, so let them have it, ha!



Yep. :up:

#6379 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:36

Time warp allowing I think only Nelson Piquet and Mika could have matched the feat.


Piquet? I doubtthat very much.

Prost for example proved that he didn't have that ability as falling outs with Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams well proves.


Not sure when Prost 'fell out' with Williams, or Mclaren for that matter.

10 years and a completely happy team and continuous car/team development over that period is something very unique


No it's not. Clark did 9 with Lotus, for a start.



Advertisement

#6380 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:40

Yes,yes,yes,yes, no, 0,5yes. Today good FP from the man of the topic title. He was quick with heavy car. Hope they don't have SS tyres again.

No, he was slower than Nico in all those races and in various of those races spent time holding Nico up (Turkey and Monaco being best examples of that)

Weird how this thread is all silent now that MSC is kicking Rosberg's behind in P1 and P2.

:rotfl: :rotfl:
Schumie fans are really desperate. It is a shame I will be away the whole weekend and cant witness another beating given to Schumie by Nico.

Everyone appears to be forgetting Monaco. He was faster than Nico the entire weekend but for a stupid call in qualifying for the cars to run too close together and then that...erm...arguable penalty in the race.

Nico was held up by Schumie for almost the whole race, on free track he would have destroyed MS again.

#6381 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:43

so what your saying is nico isnt capable of overtaking?

#6382 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:45

so what your saying is nico isnt capable of overtaking?

Yeah, another stupid post by you. Trying to overtake your teammate with an equal car at monaco is really going to work :rolleyes:

But on another note I think Nico is an average driver, so that Schumie is getting humiliated by him makes it all the funnier and amusing to me.

#6383 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 17,634 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:50

Can posters please quit the flamebaiting.

#6384 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 09:54

Yeah, another stupid post by you. Trying to overtake your teammate with an equal car at monaco is really going to work :rolleyes:

But on another note I think Nico is an average driver, so that Schumie is getting humiliated by him makes it all the funnier and amusing to me.

well if he was faster why didnt he get past at the pitstops?

i think redbarons point is proven

Agreed.

Remember no matter what. There will be a reason for why Schumacher beats Rosberg, if it's FP - it's only FP. If it's the race, Nico had issues. If it's scrabble, Schumacher got lucky with the letters. It's an utterly pointless challenge.

You have to understand these guys who dislike Schumacher have had to put up with seasons of Schumacher utterly dominating and 5 years in a row of Championships... they've gone absolutely insane watching that and the only thing they have now is an off come back season and they're milking it for everything it's wroth, milking it to death. They need this moment, so let them have it, ha!



#6385 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:02

well if he was faster why didnt he get past at the pitstops?

He had built a big enough gap to come out in front of schumacher at monaco, but then he got stuck in traffic again (behind Webber who was in no hurry and was just saving his tyres with what he had to do the rest of the race with) and lost all the time he had gained on MS.
If Mercedes had pitted him at the right time, he would have come out in front of MS for sure, but they made another tactical mistake.

The moment MS pitted, Nico started lapping 2,5 seconds quicker than he had been.

#6386 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:06

He had built a big enough gap to come out in front of schumacher at monaco, but then he got stuck in traffic again (behind Webber who was in no hurry and was just saving his tyres with what he had to do the rest of the race with) and lost all the time he had gained on MS.
If Mercedes had pitted him at the right time, he would have come out in front of MS for sure, but they made another tactical mistake.

The moment MS pitted, Nico started lapping 2,5 seconds quicker than he had been.

MGP team did a lot of tactical mistakes which put Michael behind Nico. Valencia,Germany,Monaco(in the end). So many mistakes in Qualy, Michael driving behind Nico. Loosing time.


#6387 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 3,284 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:16

The moment MS pitted, Nico started lapping 2,5 seconds quicker than he had been.


Wasn't Schumacher behind someone on track too before he pitted... so the way you are twisting the facts to make it look like Rosberg was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than Schumacher is utter nonsense and a waste of everyone's time?

#6388 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:24

MGP team did a lot of tactical mistakes which put Michael behind Nico. Valencia,Germany,Monaco(in the end). So many mistakes in Qualy, Michael driving behind Nico. Loosing time.

But in all those races MS was slower than Nico.

Wasn't Schumacher behind someone on track too before he pitted... so the way you are twisting the facts to make it look like Rosberg was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than Schumacher is utter nonsense and a waste of everyone's time?


so ms cant overtake?

but yes, he was behind Barrichello, the reason I brought that up was to point out how silly the point arknor made was (about overtaking).

#6389 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:30

Wasn't Schumacher behind someone on track too before he pitted... so the way you are twisting the facts to make it look like Rosberg was 2.5 seconds a lap quicker than Schumacher is utter nonsense and a waste of everyone's time?


Rubens- who just happened to pit on the same lap as Schumacher.

There certainly does seem to be a trend in Schumacher's performances where he does well on flowing tracks, or at least tracks that don't have heavy braking/acceleration zones, which would reinforce the view that he can't get the best out of the front tyres with this car.

#6390 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 3,284 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:33

so ms cant overtake?


So Rosberg can't overtake... after all apparently he's 2.5 seconds a lap quicker!

#6391 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:38

Hahaha, Schuey faster than Rosberg. Well, if Hamilton hadn't crashed, Rosberg would've definitely beaten Schuey in both practices.

#6392 Cheap Wine Alesi

Cheap Wine Alesi
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:38

So Rosberg can't overtake... after all apparently he's 2.5 seconds a lap quicker!

Again, you failed to understand the point I was making, so that you could be helped with that, refer to the post arknor made on the top of this page.

#6393 RedBaron

RedBaron
  • Member

  • 3,284 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 10:40

Again, you failed to understand the point I was making, so that you could be helped with that, refer to the post arknor made on the top of this page.


I see, my apologies.

#6394 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 11:15

Again, you failed to understand the point I was making, so that you could be helped with that, refer to the post arknor made on the top of this page.

yea which was in reply to your post saying nico was held up by ms in "Australia, Monaco, Turkey, Valencia, Hungary and Spa"

so what about the other races?

#6395 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 08 October 2010 - 11:15

Rubens- who just happened to pit on the same lap as Schumacher.

There certainly does seem to be a trend in Schumacher's performances where he does well on flowing tracks, or at least tracks that don't have heavy braking/acceleration zones, which would reinforce the view that he can't get the best out of the front tyres with this car.


Indeed. Monaco was an exception to this trend however.

He did well today to get ahead of Rosberg.

#6396 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 11:19

But in all those races MS was slower than Nico.

Not sure about that. Since when faster guys always win? You could be faster and finish behind slower guy. You have problem with that? Only Alonso have this right, when he is faster. :rotfl: As I see you have this so called "Team order disorder". :rotfl:

Edited by ivand911, 08 October 2010 - 11:21.


#6397 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:08

Not quite; there were many more than seven or eigght Grand prix in a season, but not all of them counted for the world championship for drivers. Full works efforts were still entered, however. If you count these in, and they shouldbe counted, the statistics begin to look somewhat different.


Ah, so you are saying that the non-championship races (should) figure in the statistics? I haven´t seen that...and no one ever thought they should. Maybe you can rewrite history then to suit your argument.



That's rubbish; in the Ascari days the Ferrari team was just about the most professional in the sport, and in the 70's had teh very best personnel available.


Name me one engineer or team manager at Ferrari in the 50s who had the same pedigree of international expertise like Jean Todt, Ross Brawn or Rory Byrne.

Concerning the 70s: you obviously have not read Lauda´s book "Protocol - my years at Ferrari", what with the Nosetto's and Cuoghi's? What with the grande casino rampant in the Scuderia those days? In general you seem to just contradict for contradicting's sake without having any hard evidence behind.



ge

Of course, but the fact you're not mentioning is that he wasn't the only driver to have driven in an era when all those factors came together; he was the only one to win seven titles.


Michael was, and congrats to him for it. Yet he was the only one for whom these factors came together in the 90s and 2000s - who else had a # 1 clause in his contract, team strategies following foot and Byrne, Brawn, Todt, FIA and Bridgestone working for him? Which other team has it's own private test track like Ferrari and could use it in an unlimited way in the 90s and 2000s?

So your argument is poor, he was the only driver in this era for whom all those factor came together.

How is Schumacher looking nowadays, with no unlimited testing? A seventh or eighth place becomes heavily celebrated like today in Suzuka, because this is the max that Michael can get without these special factors that worked in his favour all these years. Of course, apart from that, he has become older.





#6398 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:39

Ah, so you are saying that the non-championship races (should) figure in the statistics? I haven´t seen that...and no one ever thought they should. Maybe you can rewrite history then to suit your argument.


Not at all; I'm sayong your claim that there were only 7 or 8 races a year is not quite true. Unfortunately it's what a great number of the younger fans of the sport believe, and that's because they view the statistics involving only th world championship races. Let's imagine that Michael Schumacher raced in the 1950's, for Ferrari; if you happen to look at the full calendar of Grands Prix for a given year you'll find, as I'm sure you know, that as a works Ferrari driver (or maserati, or vanwall, lotus, connaught, whoever) he would have taken part in a further 10, maybe mroe, Grands Prix that were just as competetive (full works teams etc) as those that counted towards the world championship for drivers. That's a season of 18 races, just as we have now. It's easy to dismiss them because they weren't championship races, but a knowledgable fan such as yourself will know that these were just a prestigious, and often carried greater prize money. Ignoring those races - and they carried on right up to the early 1980's, with lesser frequency - is not getting the bigger picture. I'm not rewritign history in advising peopl to look at those races too, I'm simply including bits of history that are - cruelly - missed out thanks to the modern obsession with the world championship. You know as well as I do that teh Silverstone International Trophy was as prestigious a race as any. The upshot of this is that had Michael Schumacher been a works Ferrari driver in the 1950's those books would record that he won X Grands Prix when, in fact, he won many more. Ascari is recorded as winning 13 - he won many more.


Name me one engineer or team manager at Ferrari in the 50s who had the same pedigree of international expertise like Jean Todt, Ross Brawn or Rory Byrne.


Shall we start with Lampedri? You can fill in the rest.

Concerning the 70s: you obviously have not read Lauda´s book "Protocol - my years at Ferrari", what with the Nosetto's and Cuoghi's? What with the grande casino rampant in the Scuderia those days? In general you seem to just contradict for contradicting's sake without having any hard evidence behind.


You miss my point; Ferrari in the mid-1970's was one of the, if not the, best organised F1 teams of all, with the best calibre of engineers and technical brains in the business. Then was different to now, the level of professionalism was not anywhere close to todays.


So your argument is poor, he was the only driver in this era for whom all those factor came together.


No, it's not poor; he's the only driver from that era who made it come together. You are falling into this trap, again, of believing that the Ferrari team woul have been the same without Schumacher, yet you've already admitted it wouldn't. Michael lobbied Brawn and Byrne to join him there - that's fact, not fiction. Who else did that, who else wielded that sort of influence? Hill? Hakkinen? No, they didn't, did they? They took what they were given, and they did their best with it.

Quite why you can't see that is a mystery to me. Well, no, it's not; it's because you don't want to see it. We're back to square one.

How is Schumacher looking nowadays, with no unlimited testing? A seventh or eighth place becomes heavily celebrated like today in Suzuka, because this is the max that Michael can get without these special factors that worked in his favour all these years. Of course, apart from that, he has become older.


You think Hakkinen would do any better? I don't.


#6399 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 08 October 2010 - 12:59

How is Schumacher looking nowadays, with no unlimited testing? A seventh or eighth place becomes heavily celebrated like today in Suzuka, because this is the max that Michael can get without these special factors that worked in his favour all these years. Of course, apart from that, he has become older.

because alonso or hamilton in the same car would be winning races ? :rolleyes:

Advertisement

#6400 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,447 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 08 October 2010 - 14:16

Not at all; I'm sayong your claim that there were only 7 or 8 races a year is not quite true. Unfortunately it's what a great number of the younger fans of the sport believe, and that's because they view the statistics involving only th world championship races. Let's imagine that Michael Schumacher raced in the 1950's, for Ferrari; if you happen to look at the full calendar of Grands Prix for a given year you'll find, as I'm sure you know, that as a works Ferrari driver (or maserati, or vanwall, lotus, connaught, whoever) he would have taken part in a further 10, maybe mroe, Grands Prix that were just as competetive (full works teams etc) as those that counted towards the world championship for drivers. That's a season of 18 races, just as we have now. It's easy to dismiss them because they weren't championship races, but a knowledgable fan such as yourself will know that these were just a prestigious, and often carried greater prize money. Ignoring those races - and they carried on right up to the early 1980's, with lesser frequency - is not getting the bigger picture. I'm not rewritign history in advising peopl to look at those races too, I'm simply including bits of history that are - cruelly - missed out thanks to the modern obsession with the world championship. You know as well as I do that teh Silverstone International Trophy was as prestigious a race as any. The upshot of this is that had Michael Schumacher been a works Ferrari driver in the 1950's those books would record that he won X Grands Prix when, in fact, he won many more. Ascari is recorded as winning 13 - he won many more.


I know that Ascari won many more, which is why you surprise me with your Schumacherisms. Also, Michael may not have survived the 50s with his driving style, bumping into other people´s cars, Silverstone 1999 etc....


Shall we start with Lampedri? You can fill in the rest.


Ah, so you do know a little bit of F1 history, scarcely, though. One Lampedri does not equal Todt, Brawn, Byrne and Martinelli, one Lampedri equals Martinelli.


You miss my point; Ferrari in the mid-1970's was one of the, if not the, best organised F1 teams of all, with the best calibre of engineers and technical brains in the business. Then was different to now, the level of professionalism was not anywhere close to todays.


For the 1970s you obviously draw a blank: Ferrari in the 1970s were utterly disorganized, the term "grande casino" had become a mainstay for characterising the team in those days. Niki Lauda, Luca di Montezemolo and Mauro Forghieri pulled together what they could, but it was in no way on the level of the 1990s super team, from which Schumacher benefited very nicely.


You think Hakkinen would do any better? I don't.


I think Mika Hakkinen could have achieved the same success in a different way, given the super team. Not better, but different. And definitely more human and more gracious than MS. Schumacher is not the outstanding driver of all times you make him up to be - statistics are not everything, as you so eloquently explained concerning the 50s. It is the spirit in which the wins are taken, and in that department Schumacher will always lag behind.

Note also that Schumacher had greatest respect for Mika Hakkinen, he always called him his worthy opponent. Champions know other champions.

We are not back to square one, by the way. Two or three days ago already I suggested to agree to disagree. Yet you insist on pushing your viewpoints, which I accept as your viewpoints, yet will not make my own, no matter how much you insist on it. As you are free to believe what you want to believe, I am as well.

The "proofs" you have put forward are at best claims, no scientific hard facts. Neither are mine, as this subject cannot be proven, neither one way nor the other. So once again, let us agree to disagree - if you can´t, it also says something about you.