Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#7001 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 October 2010 - 20:00

Can we all come back in the present days and to forget this traction/launch control BS? I think this off topic thing was discussed a lot and I don't see any way how will change 1994 F1 results? It is pointless. Lets focus on the race in Korea. Hope Michael will do well. About Hill find appropriate thread if exist. About Prost opinion, lets leave to the Michael fans to worry about and to decide if it was wrong to return or not. I am not worried and I hope for 2 more years of this. Thank you , but no thank you Mr. Prost.

Edited by ivand911, 19 October 2010 - 20:04.


Advertisement

#7002 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,545 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 October 2010 - 20:31

About Prost opinion, lets leave to the Michael fans to worry about and to decide if it was wrong to return or not.

Exactly.
If you want a balanced debate they are the only opinions you need.

#7003 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 October 2010 - 23:15

All the 1994 cars were difficult to drive thats why Briatore had meetings with all the teams and wrote an official letter complaining to the FIA and their incompetence, that the '3 poles in a row' Williams was the only problem car is rubbish but goes nicely as an excuse along with "Benetton having TC" for Senna not to face that there was a driver who could take it to him. I don't ever recall Hill complaining about the Williams in 94.

Saying Senna pushed too hard is utter nonsense, it is well proven that the William's steering column severed and was nothing to do with Senna.

In the words of John McEnroe - "you cannot be serious!"
Italian court witchhunt tried for years to make this conclusion and failed. If you think anyone has proven the weld broke before the impact then present your case. I would offer the opinion that it would be very unlikely to be able to do so. There have been several very plausible theories offered by people whose opinions can be at least respected that Ayrton lost control that day and what factors made the car difficult in that situation - heavy fuel load, ride height etc.

It's simply nonsense to say anything in this fatality is well proven. Different drivers often tend to come up with their own theories for accidents as was the case in Jim Clark's accident in Hockenheim in 1968.

Edited by Muz Bee, 19 October 2010 - 23:17.


#7004 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 October 2010 - 02:52

In the words of John McEnroe - "you cannot be serious!"
If you think anyone has proven the weld broke before the impact then present your case. I would offer the opinion that it would be very unlikely to be able to do so. There have been several very plausible theories offered by people whose opinions can be at least respected that Ayrton lost control that day and what factors made the car difficult in that situation - heavy fuel load, ride height etc.



Sure, you start a new thread relevent.

Edited by cheapracer, 20 October 2010 - 02:53.


#7005 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 October 2010 - 03:16

That`s BS, like usual when you make a comment about Senna, St. Schumacher, Williams and 94.

Pat Symonds himself stated (In the F1Racing magazine IIRC) that the `94 Benetton was a very good and smooth car, that adapted very well to setup changes and new parts, even after the rule changes during the season.

Edit: I don`t know how many of you were around in the early nineties, but Williams always had very aggressive and sometimes undriveable cars during that time.


BS hey?

Senna wasn't an opinionated mouthpiece? Or is that actually fact?

So Senna did not have pole for every race he contended in 1994? Or is that actually a fact?

Post Senna, Hill wasn't consistently on pole or second on the grid for the entire 1994 season? Or is that actually a fact?

Feel free to nominate the "BS" parts of my posts, specifics though and leave emotion out thanks ......

It was Briatore manager of the Benetton cars who led the teams early '94 complaining about many of the cars poor handling, now why would the manager of a team with cars that had no problems do that? Anyway not relevant, what's relevant is people spouting the Williams F16 was actually a shitheap with problems as to make it look like Schumacher had it easy, The early F16 may have been a nervous car but that was quickly rectified with development but was clearly the fastest car in 1994.

I have seen and read up about every F1 GP since the late 70's, thanks.

Edited by cheapracer, 20 October 2010 - 03:51.


#7006 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 20 October 2010 - 04:22

The rule for the banning of launch control was in the regulations prior to the start of the 1994 season; there were no rules about either third brake pedals or the mass damper until the FIA decided their needed to be one well into the season. You could include many other instances, such as the famous Ferrari flexi floor ruling, where teh regulations were changed to make something that was not illegal so despite the regulations allowing it.

They did not change the rules also for mass dumper or third pedal break they only changed the interpretation of the existing rule and after that they put separately in the rule that this solutions are forbidden. So once again what is your point?
All the teams in the F1 racing are working on the edge of rules to get the necessary edge. So how then is Schumacher different from Hamilton or Alonso or other great drivers? For you to accuse someone without prove is enough in one case and not in the other? You act as if Benneton was the most unsportsmanlike team in the F1 racing in that year? There is one major rule in all areas you are innocent until you are proven guilty does this rule not count in the case of Benneton or Schumacher in 1994?


#7007 tifosiMac

tifosiMac
  • Member

  • 6,545 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 20 October 2010 - 06:21

It was Briatore manager of the Benetton cars who led the teams early '94 complaining about many of the cars poor handling, now why would the manager of a team with cars that had no problems do that?

Perhaps because there was suspicion about his team having traction control and joining them in this stand would divert attention? The guy did order a driver to crash into a wall years later so its not beyond the realms of possibility that he would cheat back then. :)

#7008 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 20 October 2010 - 08:21

They did not change the rules also for mass dumper or third pedal break they only changed the interpretation of the existing rule and after that they put separately in the rule that this solutions are forbidden. So once again what is your point?


No, they changed the rules. It's like this - I do 40mph in a 30mph zone, I get pulled, I know I'm breaking the law. I do 40mph in a 40mph zone, I get pulled, the authorities say 'well, we've decided that as from just before we pulled you it is now a 30mph zone.'

All the teams in the F1 racing are working on the edge of rules to get the necessary edge. So how then is Schumacher different from Hamilton or Alonso or other great drivers? For you to accuse someone without prove is enough in one case and not in the other? You act as if Benneton was the most unsportsmanlike team in the F1 racing in that year? There is one major rule in all areas you are innocent until you are proven guilty does this rule not count in the case of Benneton or Schumacher in 1994?


You miss my point, and my tone, completely. It gets like this on forums sometimes, when someone actually bothers to be truthful, and it's against the views of others, they are somehow a 'hater', or conversely a 'fanboy', and they have to have an 'agenda'. You brought up the third brake pedal, the mass damper, I simply pointed out the difference that in the case of launch control, in 1994, the rule was in place before the season began; in the case of the other two, there was no rule banning them (and how anyone can conclude that a mass damper is a 'moveable aerodynamic device' should be equally beyond the imagination of the fans of any team or driver.) Of course all teams are working towards a ncessary edge, that's part and parcel of what I love about this sport, but there are necessary edges that are fundamentally legal (the mass damper, the brake steer system, the double diffuser, the blown diffuser, the brabham fan car, the Lotus 88, and many, many more) that are, in some cases, deemed illegal by way of the governing body deciding so when there are, in fact, no regulations preculding them. There are others, like the inclusion of launch control in the 94 Benetton, the similar automated gearshift in the McLaren at the time, the hidden BAR fuel tank a few years back, and many more thata re blatant attempts to circumnavigate the rules. These are the differences, and yet in pointing them out you assume that I have some gripe against Benetton, and Schumacher. This happens a lot - some other equally uninventive soul on here, when I pointed out his chain of events at the 94 British GP was completely wrong and largely invented, responded with 'what's your beef anyway? Hill won the race!' as if my problem, again, was with Schumacher, and Benetton, It wasn't, it was with someone posting a list of events that largely didn't happen as fact (I was at Silverstone that day in 94, and having seen the ludicrous penalty applied was rootin for Michael. Until, that is, the team made a farce of it by insisting he didn't serve the penalty - a stupid decision in all manners.)

You see, you assume that I - and I would guess everyone - has some leaning towards drivers of a)their nationality or b)particular teams. Sadly, Osella no longer enter and I could never stand Mansell or Hill, so really I don't count. You have to get off this train of though that I'm posting because I want to put Schumacher down - in fact, I'm trying to correct you. You try and compare two legal devices that were banned by the FIA for no conceivable reason with one illegal device that was found on a car in 94 (and I am dubious as to whether it was used after the first few races) and that's not really a decent discussion.

As for your question about innocent until proven guilty - Benetton were found guilty of having an illegal launch control system on their car. That should answer that one.

#7009 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,307 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 October 2010 - 09:07

Is this thread for ever going to be stuck in 1994?

#7010 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,331 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 20 October 2010 - 09:20

Till Michael has a bad race, yes.

#7011 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 October 2010 - 09:30

Is this thread for ever going to be stuck in 1994?

did you not notice the trend? if schumacher does poorly he gets slated , if he does well we go back in time to question how good he really wasnt

#7012 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 20 October 2010 - 09:39

Let's hope this thread keeps being stuck in 1994. Then we can enjoy some great drives. :smoking:

#7013 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,980 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 October 2010 - 23:09

Let's hope this thread keeps being stuck in 1994. Then we can enjoy some great drives. :smoking:


These last days made me really think why this thread is not in TNF.
Obviously nothing recent to rave about for Schuey, so let´s keep on talking about 1994...

#7014 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,980 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 October 2010 - 23:10

Till Michael has a bad race, yes.


As obviously Michael´s "good races" in 2010 are not really anything special to talk about.


#7015 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,980 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 October 2010 - 23:11

But wait, Korea is coming up!

:smoking:


#7016 DarthRonzo

DarthRonzo
  • Member

  • 804 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 20 October 2010 - 23:26

http://www.crash.net...f_humility.html

#7017 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 October 2010 - 04:38

No, they changed the rules. It's like this - I do 40mph in a 30mph zone, I get pulled, I know I'm breaking the law. I do 40mph in a 40mph zone, I get pulled, the authorities say 'well, we've decided that as from just before we pulled you it is now a 30mph zone.'

First with this rule everything is clear but this is not true for rules in F1 racing you cannot compare rules from different area to make your point except if you are a lawyer.

You miss my point, and my tone, completely. It gets like this on forums sometimes, when someone actually bothers to be truthful, and it's against the views of others, they are somehow a 'hater', or conversely a 'fanboy', and they have to have an 'agenda'. You brought up the third brake pedal, the mass damper, I simply pointed out the difference that in the case of launch control, in 1994, the rule was in place before the season began; in the case of the other two, there was no rule banning them (and how anyone can conclude that a mass damper is a 'moveable aerodynamic device' should be equally beyond the imagination of the fans of any team or driver.)


In the case of mass dumper Ferrari and Mclaren explained to FIA that they think it is similar as other movable aerodynamic devices and should be removed. The same teams raise also the question of safety and because of that this device should be removed.

Of course all teams are working towards a ncessary edge, that's part and parcel of what I love about this sport, but there are necessary edges that are fundamentally legal (the mass damper, the brake steer system, the double diffuser, the blown diffuser, the brabham fan car, the Lotus 88, and many, many more) that are, in some cases, deemed illegal by way of the governing body deciding so when there are, in fact, no regulations preculding them. There are others, like the inclusion of launch control in the 94 Benetton, the similar automated gearshift in the McLaren at the time, the hidden BAR fuel tank a few years back, and many more thata re blatant attempts to circumnavigate the rules. These are the differences, and yet in pointing them out you assume that I have some gripe against Benetton, and Schumacher. This happens a lot - some other equally uninventive soul on here, when I pointed out his chain of events at the 94 British GP was completely wrong and largely invented, responded with 'what's your beef anyway? Hill won the race!' as if my problem, again, was with Schumacher, and Benetton, It wasn't, it was with someone posting a list of events that largely didn't happen as fact (I was at Silverstone that day in 94, and having seen the ludicrous penalty applied was rootin for Michael. Until, that is, the team made a farce of it by insisting he didn't serve the penalty - a stupid decision in all manners.)


Who are you to say that some things or solutions are legal and the others are not and then you also say that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Are you someone who knows each rule in F1 racing and all the background of each engineering solution in F1 racing or is your opinion like mine based on the stories that you hear or read in newspapers? What gives you the right to be judge and jury in one person and this person is you?

You see, you assume that I - and I would guess everyone - has some leaning towards drivers of a)their nationality or b)particular teams. Sadly, Osella no longer enter and I could never stand Mansell or Hill, so really I don't count.[q


I only asked you if you think that Benneton as the most unsporting team in 1994 and as usual I did not get the answer, instead I get this answer. You should change your profession to politician.

You have to get off this train of though that I'm posting because I want to put Schumacher down - in fact, I'm trying to correct you. You try and compare two legal devices that were b
anned by the FIA for no conceivable reason with one illegal device that was found on a car in 94 (and I am dubious as to whether it was used after the first few races) and that's not really a decent discussion.


Here you are act as judge and jury in one person so you decide what is legal and what is not so who gives you the right to do so and also who gives you the right to force your opinion to others and if they do not agree with you, you call them irrational fan. You could only say that FIA did not make a good call in case of mass dumper or third pedal break or even in the case of TC. AS it was stated several times there was no prove for TC to be used. So if I return to your very silly sentence. It does not matter if you go 100 km in the 40 kmh zone, if you are not caught, and people drive like that so are you a saint you did not break any rule or were you never caught in breaking them?

As for your question about innocent until proven guilty - Benetton were found guilty of having an illegal launch control system on their car. That should answer that one.


They were not convicted for using TC and you are saying that they use TC so who is right where they convicted to use TC? I would like to get the straight answer like in court with only yes and no possibility.

Edited by slaveceru, 21 October 2010 - 04:48.


#7018 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 October 2010 - 05:41

As for your question about innocent until proven guilty - Benetton were found guilty of having an illegal launch control system on their car. That should answer that one.


1/ Did they use it? You were at trackside Silverstone 1994, give us the lowdown ......

2/ So did you see the start? - Why do you think Damon Hill just shot off from the line like a rocket without wheelspin, black tyre marks or any commotion at all and made a considerable lead on the entire field before turn one?

3/ Do you have any comment to offer on Schumachers generally poor starts with smoke and wheelspin most of 1994?

4/ Do you think a confirmation of Schumacher's generally poor starts would put paid to the launch control use conspiracy angle?

5/ Do you think that the Williams had LC, TC and went unchecked because they had a French engine? Lets not forgot that Williams were without question the kings of F1 software at that time and if anyone could have systems that were undetectable or legally circumentive, surely it was them (hell the FIA may have even known what they were using and couldn't do a thing about it such as advanced engine mapping)?






#7019 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 October 2010 - 05:58

1/ Did they use it? You were at trackside Silverstone 1994, give us the lowdown ......


It doesn't matter. No one needs to prove if they used it. You can not have an illegal system on a car and then claim but we didn't use it, and you have to prove that we did. Finding an illegal system on a car is enough to get disqualified.

5/ Do you think that the Williams had LC, TC and went unchecked because they had a French engine? Lets not forgot that Williams were without question the kings of F1 software at that time and if anyone could have systems that were undetectable or legally circumentive, surely it was them (hell the FIA may have even known what they were using and couldn't do a thing about it such as advanced engine mapping)?


Williams were not the one caught with an illegal system on the car. Assuming that they may have had an illegal system on the car has nothing to do with the fact that Benetton did. It is nothing but a distraction.

Advertisement

#7020 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 October 2010 - 06:14

It doesn't matter. No one needs to prove if they used it. You can not have an illegal system on a car and then claim but we didn't use it, and you have to prove that we did. Finding an illegal system on a car is enough to get disqualified.

Williams were not the one caught with an illegal system on the car. Assuming that they may have had an illegal system on the car has nothing to do with the fact that Benetton did. It is nothing but a distraction.


1/ Who was disqualified Mate, is there some hidden secret in history we don't know about? Umm yes they do have to prove they used it - so please explain your point to me?

5/ Difficult to find something when you don't even bother to look isn't it - Williams were not checked but the other 3 leading teams were, why?

A distraction from what by the way, the unprovable (but defendable) case against Schumacher using LC?

You forgot to answer questions 2, 3 and 4.


#7021 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:05

http://photofile.ru/...1/163798009.jpg
http://photofile.ru/...1/163798002.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1287640315.jpg


#7022 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:31

1/ Who was disqualified Mate, is there some hidden secret in history we don't know about? Umm yes they do have to prove they used it - so please explain your point to me?

5/ Difficult to find something when you don't even bother to look isn't it - Williams were not checked but the other 3 leading teams were, why?

A distraction from what by the way, the unprovable (but defendable) case against Schumacher using LC?

You forgot to answer questions 2, 3 and 4.


Because I didn't care about 2, 3 or 4. I answered 1 and 5 because they needed addressing.

No one needs to prove if a team used an illegal device if it is found on a car. If a driver had an 8 speed gear box and the rules say you can only have 7 they would be DSQ. It wouldn't matter if he claimed he only used 7. Once you are caught with an illegal device on a car no one has to prove if it was used or not.

No one checked Williams because they didn't finish on the podium at Imola. Only the top 3 placed drivers had their car checked that day. MS, NL, and MH. Mentioning that Williams may have had something but no one checked is a distraction when the fact is that Benetton was checked and something was found.

Edited by Jazza, 21 October 2010 - 08:58.


#7023 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:36

1/ Did they use it? You were at trackside Silverstone 1994, give us the lowdown ......


If you bother to read my many posts you'll know I have absolutely no idea, and have made that quite clear.


#7024 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 21 October 2010 - 07:38

They were not convicted for using TC and you are saying that they use TC so who is right where they convicted to use TC? I would like to get the straight answer like in court with only yes and no possibility.


The rest of your post is utterly convoluted and, again, misses my point - and also assumes I'm some sort of Anti-Schumacher/Bennetton bod - but I'll answer the above with a question: where did I say, in this entire thread or elsewhere, that they used TC, or were convicted of using TC? I have no idea whether they did or not, and have never claimed to.

#7025 I_hate_chicanes

I_hate_chicanes
  • Member

  • 101 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 21 October 2010 - 09:59

BS hey?


Post Senna, Hill wasn't consistently on pole or second on the grid for the entire 1994 season? Or is that actually a fact?


Sorry to break your bubble but Hill only had 2 poles in 16 races in the 94 season...


#7026 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 21 October 2010 - 10:25

I'd like to wish Michael all the best for this weekend's GP (and hope we can leave racing from the 90s alone for a couple of days at least). If Suzuka wasn't a one-off maybe we can hope for a late season return to some sort of decent form by the (former) great champion of F1. And I think we can be assured that Rosberg fans won't cry favoritism if Michael does have a good one!

#7027 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 21 October 2010 - 10:29

can we not have a seperate thread for debating the history of michael schumacher?

Edited by arknor, 21 October 2010 - 10:29.


#7028 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 October 2010 - 10:30

Ralf is again in Korea(I think again as RTL commentator). Is Lauda having problems? Hope Ralf will bring again luck to his brother like in Suzuka.

#7029 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,179 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 21 October 2010 - 10:47

Sorry to break your bubble but Hill only had 2 poles in 16 races in the 94 season...


That single Zetec V8 powered car of MS suddenly driving rings about the distinctively more powerfull opposition in 1994... sure it was all MS' genius, he's been consistently at least a second faster than the rest of the field throughout his career, isn't he?

 ;)

#7030 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,001 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 October 2010 - 10:48

can we not have a seperate thread for debating the history of michael schumacher?


Will his statistics and other accomplishments be put in that one as well?

#7031 Mr2s

Mr2s
  • Member

  • 794 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 October 2010 - 11:00

Ralf is again in Korea(I think again as RTL commentator). Is Lauda having problems?



His mouth aches

#7032 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 21 October 2010 - 11:16

Schumacher hopes: Even better than in Japan?
http://translate.goo...n_10102110.html

#7033 Zoe

Zoe
  • Member

  • 2,716 posts
  • Joined: July 99

Posted 21 October 2010 - 11:39

Sorry to break your bubble but Hill only had 2 poles in 16 races in the 94 season...


Still, Williams won the constructors championship in 1994 and shared six pole positions with Benetton. Fastest laps in the races were evenly shared between Benetton and Williams.
So cheapy's point that the Williams was a bl**dy good car in 1994 still stands, don't you think?

Zoe

#7034 frp

frp
  • Member

  • 350 posts
  • Joined: September 04

Posted 21 October 2010 - 11:54

In the case of mass dumper Ferrari and Mclaren explained to FIA that they think it is similar as other movable aerodynamic devices and should be removed.


If the mass damper is a movable aerodynamic device, then any race car since 1970 that has had springs or an anti-roll bar needs to be expunged from the results.

#7035 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 22 October 2010 - 07:21

That single Zetec V8 powered car of MS suddenly driving rings about the distinctively more powerfull opposition in 1994... sure it was all MS' genius, he's been consistently at least a second faster than the rest of the field throughout his career, isn't he?

;)


- he was driving circles around Hill at the beginning of the season, not the end
- Senna was driving circle around Hill in the same car

This says a lot more about Hill than about the Benetton.

- Senna made the 3 first poles with an average 0.3s on Schumacher, gap he was totally unable to make in 93, where they were even in qual on season long, with the same engine (yes, the same)

That says quite something about the B194 being slower than the Williams, even at the beginning of the season, at least on a single lap. More difficult to drive maybe, but faster. That says also a lot about the Williams being much faster at the end of the season. Hill totally **** up his qual in Adelaide but Schumacher made a good one. Yet there were equal and 0.8s behind Mansell. It seems that at this end of the year, the Williams had recorvered the entire superiority of 1993. Now you can understand how Hill could beat MS at Suzuka and follow him in Australia.

Oh , you forgot all that ? Or don't want to remember ? Well, good for you.










#7036 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,179 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 22 October 2010 - 07:47

...
Oh , you forgot all that ? Or don't want to remember ?


Sorry, my capacity to remember other peoples alternate realities is limited.

Yours just fell through as soon as you claimed McLaren and Benetton using the same engine in '93... :drunk:

#7037 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 October 2010 - 07:50

This is what come to my mind when you say 1994:
http://deetroy.users...e/120919466.jpg
:rotfl:

Edited by ivand911, 22 October 2010 - 07:51.


#7038 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 22 October 2010 - 08:29

The illegal fuel rigs meant starting lighter, easier in breaks and tyres, quicker pitstops, more strategy options - a rotten season in more ways then one. And to think that there are some on here that like to brush it under the carpet. ;-) Still, that is history, as of today after practice which clearly is not an accurate gauge, M Schumacher was in 12th, 3 tenths slower than his teammate. Will be interesting to see how the weekend develops.

#7039 Massa

Massa
  • Member

  • 4,266 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 October 2010 - 08:42

- he was driving circles around Hill at the beginning of the season, not the end
- Senna was driving circle around Hill in the same car

This says a lot more about Hill than about the Benetton.

- Senna made the 3 first poles with an average 0.3s on Schumacher, gap he was totally unable to make in 93, where they were even in qual on season long, with the same engine (yes, the same)

That says quite something about the B194 being slower than the Williams, even at the beginning of the season, at least on a single lap. More difficult to drive maybe, but faster. That says also a lot about the Williams being much faster at the end of the season. Hill totally **** up his qual in Adelaide but Schumacher made a good one. Yet there were equal and 0.8s behind Mansell. It seems that at this end of the year, the Williams had recorvered the entire superiority of 1993. Now you can understand how Hill could beat MS at Suzuka and follow him in Australia.

Oh , you forgot all that ? Or don't want to remember ? Well, good for you.


Mclaren had a customer engine Ford in 93, while Benetton had a official ford engine.
This year, Benetton had a far better engine ford than Mclaren. And for me, it was the best year of Senna, his car was very crap this year.

Advertisement

#7040 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,407 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 22 October 2010 - 09:10

This thread has become very heavily diverted from its remit. Can we steer it back to 2010 Schumie please?

#7041 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 2,960 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 22 October 2010 - 09:39

That single Zetec V8 powered car of MS suddenly driving rings about the distinctively more powerfull opposition in 1994... sure it was all MS' genius, he's been consistently at least a second faster than the rest of the field throughout his career, isn't he?

;)


No but he was consistently faster and better than Hill in 1994. If Schumacher hadn't have had the DQ's he would have been champion with races to spare.

#7042 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,307 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 22 October 2010 - 09:45

This thread has become very heavily diverted from its remit. Can we steer it back to 2010 Schumie please?



Schumacher needs a bad race for that to happen lol. But in all seriousness i agree. I have avoided this thread over the last week or so for its complete irrelevance

#7043 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:01

Schumacher needs a bad race for that to happen lol. But in all seriousness i agree. I have avoided this thread over the last week or so for its complete irrelevance


I wouldn't say history is irrelevant, but Buttoneer is right.

Michael's looking great this weekend, isn't he?

#7044 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:04

Schumacher needs a bad race for that to happen lol. But in all seriousness i agree. I have avoided this thread over the last week or so for its complete irrelevance


That could be this weekend. On this years form S1 will be a real struggle for him as he has struggled on tight turns on fast tracks. For example in Spa Schumacher was losing a lot of time in S1 even though it's a 1 corner sector.

#7045 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:15

That is what Brawn was saying earlier in the year, about how Michael isnt loosing time of the hard sections, but in fact on the easy, slower sections due to traction and braking issues with the tyres, very strange

After hearing Pedro's comments of the new tyres for 2011, i think the real Michael Schumacher will once again emerge and return to the surface

#7046 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 2,960 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:24

That is what Brawn was saying earlier in the year, about how Michael isnt loosing time of the hard sections, but in fact on the easy, slower sections due to traction and braking issues with the tyres, very strange

After hearing Pedro's comments of the new tyres for 2011, i think the real Michael Schumacher will once again emerge and return to the surface


Slower corners take more time, hence there is more time to be lost (or won). If cars have traction problems exiting the corner and balance changes between entry, middle and exit of such corners its no wonder so much time is lost.

Fast corners are over in the blink of an eye and with the downforce levels these cars have, it's fairly easy to negotiate.



#7047 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:35

I still think difference tomorrow in S1 will be not 0,5 sec. Maybe they tried different things with/without F-duct. Still Michael have fastest top speed.

Edited by ivand911, 22 October 2010 - 10:43.


#7048 SpeedyS

SpeedyS
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:41

Heres my bet, MS is going to pull one out of the bag tomorrow in Qual.

Why? I was at FP1 / 2 today in the braking zone on the grandstand straight, all day MS downshifted and hit the brakes 50yds before where NR did, wasnt committing to the corner at all. Could not understand. Just got home looked at the best sectors times and rigt enough MS is 0.6 down on NR just in S1!! but up in S2 S3.

http://www.formula1....ctor_times.html

This was also with the fastest speed trap

http://www.formula1....speed_trap.html

Just have a feeling he will do ok tomorrow :wave:



#7049 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:47

Heres my bet, MS is going to pull one out of the bag tomorrow in Qual.

Why? I was at FP1 / 2 today in the braking zone on the grandstand straight, all day MS downshifted and hit the brakes 50yds before where NR did, wasnt committing to the corner at all. Could not understand. Just got home looked at the best sectors times and rigt enough MS is 0.6 down on NR just in S1!! but up in S2 S3.

http://www.formula1....ctor_times.html

This was also with the fastest speed trap

http://www.formula1....speed_trap.html

Just have a feeling he will do ok tomorrow :wave:

You will be lucky to see first Korean GP and MS there too. :) Thanks for info. I hope you are right. I also think he like the track and didn't have big problems.

Edited by ivand911, 22 October 2010 - 10:53.


#7050 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 6,980 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 22 October 2010 - 10:51

Schumacher needs a bad race for that to happen lol. But in all seriousness i agree. I have avoided this thread over the last week or so for its complete irrelevance


Same with me.

Yet the reason why the thread is not exactly overflowing with posts when Schumi is doing comparatively well like in Suzuka is that people want to see the excellency from Michael they were used to. Would this excellency be there in 2010 people would not keep discussing 1994. As it is, if Michael does bad this draws more posts because this is what could not be expected.

A moderate showing by Michael draws a moderate amount of posts.