And it is considered, by you, to be 'the car to have' because he won the championship in it. In several cases of championship years there was no other reason to think that it was 'the car to have' at all. Certainly 3 of his championships were won in circumstances where the F1 world in general did not think he was in 'the car to have'. He also would have cantered to one more if he were in the car for the whole year.
If that achievement secured him the car to have for several seasons, in which he always won the WDC, then thats hardly a negative point against his name but simply to be expected.
It's just my opinion it was "the car to have" for many reasons that have little to do wit him winning the title. Like I said, the fastest car doesn't automatically make it "the car to have" Alonso's 2005 is an example where he was in the car to have while Raikkonen had the faster car.
Likewise, those 3 titles you, and others consider Schumacher won the title when he shouldn't have might be thought of that way because he wasn't in the fastest car, which brings me to my what I said earlier about "the car to have".
There is no guarantee that Schumacher would have won the 99 title had he completed the season, Hakkinen's results since that point can't really be used as the "what if" I hold the opinion that those results were greatly influenced by the fact that Schumacher wasn't there. Anyway, great drivers deliver when the opportunity arrives, and, the opportunity was presented to him many times, and he duly delivered, as he should. I think you may have misunderstood my point.
Edited by Birelman, 17 April 2011 - 06:25.