Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
20771 replies to this topic

#9351 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,835 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 17 April 2011 - 18:50

In 1995 he had a Renault powered Benetton and I don't count it as a weaker (not much at least) car.


The 1995 car was inferior to the Williams on qualifying and (sometimes) racing trim.

I mean, the drivers, David and Damon just didn't get it going on the races.

Schu made the difference.

Advertisement

#9352 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,972 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 17 April 2011 - 20:41

Did anyone catch the BBC on the grid walk where they just catch Schumacher briefly as was walking? Was that the first Schuey interview brief one on the grid since when? It felt like the first time we heard from Schumacher before a race on the grid as that german contract pretty much kept him away from uk tv.

Anyhow, his whole demeanor before the race was pretty much like Monza 2006/ Japan 2006, one of those weekends, just try to keep to himself and that professional bubble, trying to control that level of determination through what he had to do, the Monaco 2006 race was the same, it kinda prepared you for what Schumacher was going to do off the start. He's had alot of those races, but I think he's one of the few drivers I've seen where you know what's going to happen based on his whole body language, you pick up on it, and he did deliver a result to prove it.

Mark Slade was talking about professionality and MS, seemed fitting. What a week from Sepang to China for everyone at Mercedes, pretty cool. It makes a change when your fighting a ferrari with the new guy in your old seat, that was cool.

Edited by SeanValen, 17 April 2011 - 20:43.


#9353 merschu

merschu
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 17 April 2011 - 20:54

Michael Schumacher at the Launch of MSone shoes by Navyboot.

Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image

Posted Image


Article: http://translate.goo...../articolo.htm

The MSone site: http://www.m-s-one.com/

Edited by merschu, 17 April 2011 - 21:24.


#9354 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 April 2011 - 23:39

Definitely 1994 Benetton, 2003 Ferrari
and maybe 2000 - first title with Ferrari.

car to have does not = fastest car.

Benetton 94 was better over the season than the Williams which was fast in Senna's hands. 03 Ferrari? gimmie a break that might not have been an extremely overwhelmingly dominant car, but it was still the car to have. 2000 Ferrari was the car to have McLaren was fast but fragile.

#9355 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 17 April 2011 - 23:50

car to have does not = fastest car.

Benetton 94 was better over the season than the Williams which was fast in Senna's hands. 03 Ferrari? gimmie a break that might not have been an extremely overwhelmingly dominant car, but it was still the car to have. 2000 Ferrari was the car to have McLaren was fast but fragile.

The '03 Ferrari had serious tyre wear issues throughout the year, you only need to watch some of the onboards to see how nasty it could be at times to drive. TC scrunching away like mad. Case in point . There's no doubting it was a fundamentally quick car, however.

Also, look how far down Barrichello finished that season in relation to MSC. 4th, behind a McLaren and a Williams.

Edited by dav115, 17 April 2011 - 23:51.


#9356 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 April 2011 - 00:06

The '03 Ferrari had serious tyre wear issues throughout the year, you only need to watch some of the onboards to see how nasty it could be at times to drive. TC scrunching away like mad. Case in point . There's no doubting it was a fundamentally quick car, however.

Also, look how far down Barrichello finished that season in relation to MSC. 4th, behind a McLaren and a Williams.

Haha, I know enough about Formula 1 to know not to use Schumacher's comparisons to his teammate's performance.

I can agree the 03 Ferrari wasn't exactly "perfect" cars rarely are, specially if you compare it with some other cars Michael drove, but it was still better than the Williams and McLaren by a noticeable margin. The very least you could say is that, it was "just as good" as the other cars, but not inferior by any stretch of the imagination.

#9357 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 18 April 2011 - 00:29

Haha, I know enough about Formula 1 to know not to use Schumacher's comparisons to his teammate's performance.

I can agree the 03 Ferrari wasn't exactly "perfect" cars rarely are, specially if you compare it with some other cars Michael drove, but it was still better than the Williams and McLaren by a noticeable margin. The very least you could say is that, it was "just as good" as the other cars, but not inferior by any stretch of the imagination.

I see you are one of those who believes Barrichello was somehow delibaretly hampered during his time at Ferrari in order to help Michael. Unfortunately that theory falls to pieces when you consider how vital it was, ESPECIALLY in 2003, for Rubens to be up at the front with Michael, taking points off the Williams' and McLarens. Then you can look at how Rubens renewed his contract on two occasions following his initial spell at Ferrari, during the time in which he was being touted for a Williams drive.

#9358 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 18 April 2011 - 06:09

The '03 Ferrari had serious tyre wear issues throughout the year, you only need to watch some of the onboards to see how nasty it could be at times to drive. TC scrunching away like mad. Case in point . There's no doubting it was a fundamentally quick car, however.

Also, look how far down Barrichello finished that season in relation to MSC. 4th, behind a McLaren and a Williams.


I don't get this :confused:. If he finished 4th behind a Williams and a McLaren, then he also must of finished ahead of a Williams and a McLaren.

At the end of the year Ferrari won the contractors championship, and Barrichello had as many wins as any other driver except for Schumacher. If the Ferrari wasn't the best package, what was?

#9359 MCh000

MCh000
  • Member

  • 181 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 18 April 2011 - 06:50

Michael Schumacher at the Launch of MSone shoes by Navyboot.


The MSone site: http://www.m-s-one.com/


Nice price for the shoes - 5000 and 3000 Euros :D

Advertisement

#9360 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 18 April 2011 - 07:14

car to have does not = fastest car.

2000 Ferrari was the car to have McLaren was fast but fragile.


Cars are labelled "fast" according to the end results and how their drivers are considered "fast" or "not that fast". Not saying that Schumacher was a hack, but considering that in 2000 he was generally regarded as "head and shoulders above the rest" by the fanboy infested F1 media, the speed of his Ferrari was bound to be underrated back then.

Anyway, regardless of the drivers, Ferrari reliability advantage was so massive there's no doubt that in 2000 Ferrari was the car to have.

#9361 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 April 2011 - 08:12

car to have does not = fastest car.

Benetton 94 was better over the season than the Williams which was fast in Senna's hands.

:rolleyes:
Yeah, those 94 Benettons looked sooo fast with anyone else at the wheel.

#9362 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 April 2011 - 08:44

:rolleyes:
Yeah, those 94 Benettons looked sooo fast with anyone else at the wheel.

just ignore them everytime schumacher has a good weekend you get people grave digging to question stuff from 10+ years ago no matter how senseless it is

#9363 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 19 April 2011 - 17:36

Hello all, I'm new to the forum but a Schumi fan from a long time back. I'm here to be objective about his performances, as well as remember the glory years with y'all :clap:
Which, incidentally, were not always the years he won titles. For me the title fights were what mattered and provided the races that thrilled me the most.

I've been lurking here a long time and have noticed some spectacularly brilliant anti-Schumi posts being knocked around. To anyone who honestly doubts he was one of the greatest F1 drivers of all time I would say 2 things...

i) I can't believe you love F1, saw Michael drag that 1997 Ferrari to a near title win, and failed to notice he was a flawed genius. I mean really, if you love a sport then you want to see it done as well as possible and watching Michael drive at his peak was just about it for me. You don't have to like the man or accept his occaisonally massive failings as a sportsman. But if you are in the business of wanting to see a racing car pushed to the limit... he was the man.

ii) It wasn't always about having the best car or a subservient team mate. If you haven't watched it go take a look at the 1991 Monza GP, I'm pretty sure its on YouTube. Fans will already know what I'm talking about. Start from there and watch as many of his 1991 and 1992 races as you can. Even then he was clearly something very special.

#9364 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 19 April 2011 - 18:01

Welcome spacekid :wave:

Those vintage MS years were indeed very special, but don't expect any easy time telling the resident thread trolls that :)

#9365 Cult

Cult
  • Member

  • 658 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 19 April 2011 - 18:26

This always having the best car when winning his seven world championships is crazy.

1994 - teammate finished 10th in the world championship.

1995 - teammate finished 4th in the world championship behind the two Williams' even considering Herbert was gifted wins in Britain and Monza after Hill took Schumacher and himself out. Coulthard and Hill made so many errors that year, I watched three 1995 races last night - Monza, Suzuka and Australia. DC crashed out of the lead in Monza, crashed out of 2nd in Suzuka and crashed into the pitlane entry from 1st in Australia. The Williams was clearly the better car at points in the season but they never had the drivers to pull it off.

2000 - close but McLaren made many mistakes in the season despite winning seven of the middle ten races. You can't argue that the Ferrari was the best, perhaps equal best.

2001 - Best although Hakkinen and Coulthard were poor this year.

2002 - Undoubtedly the best.

2003 - Ferrari experienced some really difficult races throughout 2003 and were definitely not on the best tyres. Missed opportunity by Montoya who arguably had the best car overall this year, finished twice numerous times. Raikkonen also missed a trick.

2004 - Undoubtedly the best.

As you can see only for three of these years could you put forward a clear case for Ferrari having the best car. The rest are clearly subjective and there is plenty of evidence to support the opposite.

Edited by Cult, 19 April 2011 - 19:23.


#9366 Professor Arturo

Professor Arturo
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 19 April 2011 - 20:48

Well, an obvious case could be made for 1995 (not having the best car), but DC was just a rookie and Hill drove the worst season of his life (with the exception of 1999).
In 1994 Benetton was clearly the car to have, same for 2003 (which IMO was the worst title for MS, he drove many bad races that year and if not for reliability problems for KR or JPM, he would not have taken the title).
2000 is so-so, some prefer one car, the others another.

#9367 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 April 2011 - 21:34

I see you are one of those who believes Barrichello was somehow delibaretly hampered during his time at Ferrari in order to help Michael. Unfortunately that theory falls to pieces when you consider how vital it was, ESPECIALLY in 2003, for Rubens to be up at the front with Michael, taking points off the Williams' and McLarens. Then you can look at how Rubens renewed his contract on two occasions following his initial spell at Ferrari, during the time in which he was being touted for a Williams drive.

WTH is this amateur night? you trying to lecture me on F1?

You like comparisons? how many wins did Montoya's and Raikkonen's teammates have in 03 and how many did Schumacher's have?

I'm already losing touch on why this is being discussed even, somebody said that the "world in general" believed 3 of his WDCs were in cars that should NOT have won the WDC, this is the whole argument. Now, you want to say he didn't have the BEST car by far, ok, we can buy that, BUT, all of his WDCs were in cars fully capable of winning the title, specially in the circumstances that they happened, in 94 Senna (his main rival) died, in 95 the circus between the Williams drivers allowed for Schumacher to make the difference, and in 03 he had the best package, however a troublesome season, but his rivals had a weaker car. There's really not much to discuss here.

Edited by Birelman, 19 April 2011 - 21:39.


#9368 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,995 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 19 April 2011 - 22:56

somebody said that the "world in general" believed 3 of his WDCs were in cars that should NOT have won the WDC, this is the whole argument.

Someone said that he , except for ONE season, in 'the car to have' (that was you).

Nice deflection though ;)

#9369 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 April 2011 - 00:17

Hello all, I'm new to the forum but a Schumi fan from a long time back. I'm here to be objective about his performances, as well as remember the glory years with y'all :clap:
Which, incidentally, were not always the years he won titles. For me the title fights were what mattered and provided the races that thrilled me the most.

I've been lurking here a long time and have noticed some spectacularly brilliant anti-Schumi posts being knocked around. To anyone who honestly doubts he was one of the greatest F1 drivers of all time I would say 2 things...

i) I can't believe you love F1, saw Michael drag that 1997 Ferrari to a near title win, and failed to notice he was a flawed genius. I mean really, if you love a sport then you want to see it done as well as possible and watching Michael drive at his peak was just about it for me. You don't have to like the man or accept his occaisonally massive failings as a sportsman. But if you are in the business of wanting to see a racing car pushed to the limit... he was the man.

ii) It wasn't always about having the best car or a subservient team mate. If you haven't watched it go take a look at the 1991 Monza GP, I'm pretty sure its on YouTube. Fans will already know what I'm talking about. Start from there and watch as many of his 1991 and 1992 races as you can. Even then he was clearly something very special.


Welcome, I find myself in your predicament, except that I am not a fan. But I saw him race and truth about his greatness as a driver must be respected.



#9370 Jomyboy

Jomyboy
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 20 April 2011 - 06:54

1994 = The Williams was the car to have. It was better than the Benetton with a FORD V8. You got to give it to Michael. A championship earned by a driver! Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles

1995 = I guess the Williams was better but the Benetton wasn't that bad. Driver + Car made the difference.
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles

1996 = I dont think any other driver could have ever won 3 gps in that Ferrari. Michael made the difference back then!
Best driver on the grid = Villenueve for that year. He was something special I must admit!

1997 = The Williams was sooo the car to have. Jacques may have won the championship, but everyone in their right minds knew the Michael was the driver of the year. Midway through the season the Ferrari's had a hard time qualifying competitively, the car was so off the pace that its amazing to think Michael went into the final round leading on points!!!!
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles.

1998 = I can still recall Hakkinen's post qualifying gaffe "It will take a MIRACLE for anyone to beat us this year" After the Argentine race, Michael was quick to pounce on that one, he says "We finally have a Miracle." The look on Mika's face was worth a million! The Mclaren - Bridgestone combo was the car to have. The championship should have never got around until the last race. To me 1998 was the epitome of Schumacher Brilliance. I dunno how many races I'd watched that made me have goosebumps. You couldn't get proper sleep the night after the races becuz you'd still not gotten over his brilliant drives.
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles. One particular event that has not been discussed in the posts out year is Monaco 1998 qualifying. He had missed the Saturday Free Practice due to some issue, and he had to got straight out into qualifying in the T3 car. He managed to secure 4th in a car that he had never driven b4 that wknd!!!! During the race, he managed to overtake Alex Wurz. Can you believe it, overtaking a Renault at Monaco!!!! What miffed me most was when Louise Goodman interviewed Alex Wurz and she said, "That was great racing Alex, you were able to make Michael fight hard to get that position from you." Holly Crap, somebody overtakes @Monaco and all she got to say is congratulations to Alex for ruining Michaels day!!!! Thank God we switched over from ITV feed to Steve Slater!

2000 = We've had plenty of seasons with championships won due to some advantage or the other. But come Suzuka, it was the driver skill that won it for Michael. Mika was fast in the Mclaren and I do not doubt had the race stayed dry he would have won it. But when the conditions were most challenging, with the title in the balance it was one of Michael's GREATEST ever race to win the championship.
Best driver on the grid = Michael the worthy champion. A lot of people have a lot of theories about why Michael cried after the Monza race. Michael did say it was thinkin of Aryton. But I have a different viewpoint. After the Belgian GP, Michael had lost all the lead he had built up to that point. What looked like a championship winning season was turning out to be a disaster. People were even questioning if Michael was the best driver out there? To which Michael had replied that he never thought he was the best racing driver. I think even he had begun to lose hope in winning the championship and more sadly in himself. There was so much pressure on him, us fans during the Monza weekend. That, when it finally finished with a win - I guess it's a release of emotions. I as a fan had tears in my eyes, so why wouldn't he?

2001 = He had a very good car with him, and he made sure he got the job done well!
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles.

2002 = Ferrari was the car to have.
Best car on the grid = Ferrari.

2003 = The Michelins were the tyres to have that season. Schumacher didnt start off too nice. But its amazing how as the season progresses, he gets better and better.
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles. The race that had it all was USA 2003, reminiscent of China 2006 I'd say?? Plus the stunning move on Montoya at Monza for the lead was the stuff of Legend.

2004 = Ferrari was the car to have.
Best car on the grid = Ferrari.

2006 = I thought Schumacher had lost that cutting edge by the end of 2004 and the start of 2006 pretty much reinforced that. Schumacher's decision to retire was taken around that point itself. He must have thought that he no longer had that edge over others, so its best to retire while you're still somewhat good than being nothing at all. All that changed during the latter half of the season. It was like 1998 all over again. China 2006 was like coming from being dead and to feel alive!!!! He looked every bit the man who knew how to drive on the ragged edge. Brazil 2006 was like a fairytale ending even if it didnt get him the championship. We got to see the entire 16 years of Michael's F1 career in that 1-1/2 hour. The never say die attitude even the chips are down. And some of those moves were the most daring one had ever watched in F1. It was the perfect ending to the Schumacher Era.
Best driver on the grid = Simply Michael!

I don't think Alonso, Hamilton, or Vettel would ever be able to make that sort of impression on me. They have won quite a bit between themselves but not on Schumachers level. Yes, Vettel @Monza was a rare exception. But how many other drives have we had where we could sum it up by saying Wow! That win was all about the driver and not the car! Thats why Schumacher's legacy will never be forgotten!

Edited by Jomyboy, 20 April 2011 - 07:05.


#9371 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:11

Article: http://translate.goo...../articolo.htm

The MSone site: http://www.m-s-one.com/


hmmm very "Michael Schumacher fashion taste"..

i wouldnt wear those in a million years :lol:

Edited by glorius&victorius, 20 April 2011 - 07:12.


#9372 DracoN

DracoN
  • Member

  • 901 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:14

Posted Image :rotfl:

#9373 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 20 April 2011 - 07:58

In 1994 Benetton was clearly the car to have, ...

Yeah, it looked awesome in the hands of every driver who sat in it. Oh, hang on ...

#9374 Frans

Frans
  • Member

  • 7,701 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 20 April 2011 - 09:12

The 1994 Benetton was a super One-man-show cheatmachine.

Without the illegal gadgets activated, the car was a worse dog than his 2011 Mercedes.

#9375 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:15

Yeah, it looked awesome in the hands of every driver who sat in it. Oh, hang on ...


Schumacher looked more dominate in 94 than at any other time in his whole career. He has never smashed his team mates like he did in 94. The 2nd Benetton could hardly score a point while Micheal was winning race after race, even at times a full lap ahead of the field.

Their is no way the second car was in anyway a reflection of the speed of the car. If Micheal was that good he would have won every single championship from 94 till 2006.

There is also no way MS is 2-3 seconds per lap faster than any decent F1 driver. But that was the kind of gap he would often put over the 2nd Benetton that year. The 2nd car tells us nothing about the true speed of the Benetton.

#9376 Chezrome

Chezrome
  • Member

  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 20 April 2011 - 10:45

In 1994, 1995 and 1996 every other other driver than Schumacher hated the Benetton. Verstappen once drove in Michaels car. He said some stuff about electronics that was not on his car, but he also stated the setup of Michaels car was so fundamentally different, he could not drive it. Herbert in 1995 was on average 0.6 seconds slower in qualifying, and it was not the car, as telemetry at Silverstone showed. Herbert braked later for every corner, but Michael was able to give mid corner throttle and controll the very twisty Benetton. In 1996 Berger and Alesi were completely mystified by the Benetton with which Schumacher drove so well.

I am not saying Michael was the best in those years. But he could drive a car very fast that other very competent drivers just were lost with. To remind you: the same happened with Tyrrel, when Jacky Stewart left the sport in 1973 and Francois Cevert was lost in a crash. Maurice Philippe has stated that he designed short, very responsive cars and Stewart and Cevert could drive very well with it. Scheckter en Depailler (no minions) really had trouble coping with the Tyrrel cars untill Philippe designed cars with a longer base.

Regarding Schumacher this year: a friend of mine who worked at Mercedes F1 told me that at Merc, the assumption was this: that Michael was still relying on his reflexes of old, when he was able to respond to very small inbalances midcorner. But he just doesn't have that same feeling anymore, though he still thinks he has it.

Edited by Chezrome, 20 April 2011 - 10:45.


#9377 F1 Tor.

F1 Tor.
  • Member

  • 2,832 posts
  • Joined: August 04

Posted 20 April 2011 - 11:10

Posted Image :rotfl:



Woman:"OMG, those are hideous. Think of all the people running around leaving the MS initial on the ground."

#9378 Ruf

Ruf
  • Member

  • 1,279 posts
  • Joined: July 06

Posted 20 April 2011 - 13:34

Woman:"OMG, those are hideous. Think of all the people running around leaving the MS initial on the ground."

The red boots are indeed "questionable" but the white sneakers look both comfortable and classy.

Just imagine having one of those, and every morning leaving MS and 7 stars footprints all over Frans driveway :rotfl:

Edited by Ruf, 20 April 2011 - 13:37.


#9379 Polle

Polle
  • Member

  • 292 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 April 2011 - 13:43

wow, those cases for the shoes look totally epic

8000 USD up your bum!

Advertisement

#9380 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 April 2011 - 15:45

Schumacher looked more dominate in 94 than at any other time in his whole career. He has never smashed his team mates like he did in 94. The 2nd Benetton could hardly score a point while Micheal was winning race after race, even at times a full lap ahead of the field.

Their is no way the second car was in anyway a reflection of the speed of the car. If Micheal was that good he would have won every single championship from 94 till 2006.

There is also no way MS is 2-3 seconds per lap faster than any decent F1 driver. But that was the kind of gap he would often put over the 2nd Benetton that year. The 2nd car tells us nothing about the true speed of the Benetton.

:up:

#9381 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 20 April 2011 - 15:50

In 1994, 1995 and 1996 every other other driver than Schumacher hated the Benetton. Verstappen once drove in Michaels car. He said some stuff about electronics that was not on his car, but he also stated the setup of Michaels car was so fundamentally different, he could not drive it. Herbert in 1995 was on average 0.6 seconds slower in qualifying, and it was not the car, as telemetry at Silverstone showed. Herbert braked later for every corner, but Michael was able to give mid corner throttle and controll the very twisty Benetton. In 1996 Berger and Alesi were completely mystified by the Benetton with which Schumacher drove so well.

I am not saying Michael was the best in those years. But he could drive a car very fast that other very competent drivers just were lost with. To remind you: the same happened with Tyrrel, when Jacky Stewart left the sport in 1973 and Francois Cevert was lost in a crash. Maurice Philippe has stated that he designed short, very responsive cars and Stewart and Cevert could drive very well with it. Scheckter en Depailler (no minions) really had trouble coping with the Tyrrel cars untill Philippe designed cars with a longer base.

Regarding Schumacher this year: a friend of mine who worked at Mercedes F1 told me that at Merc, the assumption was this: that Michael was still relying on his reflexes of old, when he was able to respond to very small inbalances midcorner. But he just doesn't have that same feeling anymore, though he still thinks he has it.

Yes, Schumacher always liked a stiff nervous car that everyone else found horrific to drive, which is a big contributor to why the gap to his teammates was so big at times. I'm not saying his teammates would have been faster than him if they liked the car the same way, but it's perfectly acceptable to assume the gap would not be as big if the other driver was as comfortable as he was.

#9382 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,815 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 20 April 2011 - 16:30

Yes, Schumacher always liked a stiff nervous car that everyone else found horrific to drive, which is a big contributor to why the gap to his teammates was so big at times. I'm not saying his teammates would have been faster than him if they liked the car the same way, but it's perfectly acceptable to assume the gap would not be as big if the other driver was as comfortable as he was.

I think that is more than reasonable to expect
a few tenths and consistently on good form but talking about "seconds" is SciFi...

I don't think anybody with a sane mind would expect that kind of gaps

#9383 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,995 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 20 April 2011 - 21:24

Yes, Schumacher always liked a stiff nervous car that everyone else found horrific to drive, which is a big contributor to why the gap to his teammates was so big at times. I'm not saying his teammates would have been faster than him if they liked the car the same way, but it's perfectly acceptable to assume the gap would not be as big if the other driver was as comfortable as he was.


I think you may have things a bit confused there though. Stay with me Im not being rude.

One way to make a car faster is to stiffen it up and make things, on the whole, more nervous. There is a balance between the theoretical speed the car can get and its drivability. You can make it easier and more comfortable but it costs you. The benetton was not that fast but it did lend itself to stiffening up and making it so the driver had to work hard ata it. MS didn't WANT a twitchy piece of crap, but he was able to deal with one, and therefore gain the speed benefit his lesser teammates could not.

Other really great drivers would no doubt have been able to use some of that speed too, but drivers who, in a nice friendly car, would have been a tenth or two off that great driver were suddenly all at sea.

#9384 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,809 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 20 April 2011 - 22:13

There´s some reallt crazy assumptions here.
The 1994 Benetton B194 was inferior to the Williams, and wasn´t the car to have?!
WTF?! Who actually watched the races back then?
Schumachers Benetton lapped all cars except Senna in Brazil, almost everyone in Aida
and in Imola. In Monaco he was 1.5 seconds quicker than Damon in qualifying and 1 second
quicker than Mika whom was slightly quicker than Schumacher according to Brundle.
In Spain his car was the 2:nd quickest despite being stuck in 5:th gear!! Imagine that in
2011!
JJ-Letho outqualified both Ferraris, one McLaren, one Williams and was 0,4 behind Hill.
Oops Benetton had to slow him down after that.. In the next race he was 2.8 seconds behind
Schumacher in qualifying.
The first time Jonny Herbert raced the car he qualified 0.6 seconds behind Schumacher in Suzuka
and he was less than a tenth behind Mansell in the Williams and about a tenth behind Hill.
In the next race he was 1.5 seconds slower..

The Ferrari F2000 being inferior?! Give me a break, the car was even better than the -99 Ferrari in
which Irvine almost won the WDC.

The Ferrari F2003 being inferior is a joke, not even worth commenting really but anyway..
Schumacher did 3 clear mistakes in the first 3 races when the Ferrari looked really strong,
Rubens crashed in Australia being 2:nd on the grid. He came 2:nd in the race in Malaysia
and would probably have won in Brazil if he hadn´t run out of fuel.
In Imola it would have been a clear 1-2 to Ferrari if not Rubens would have been held up during the
race. Qualifying was 1-3 btw.
In Spain the Ferraris were 1 minute ahead of the Williams, only Alonso had a good run in the Renault in 2:nd.
Ferrari were 1-2 in qualifying.
In Austria (which was one of Michaels worst tracks) he won again in the Ferrari and Rubens was a close 3:rd.
On the more drivers track Monaco, Schumacher was too slow in qualifying but he managed a good solid 3:rd
in the race.
Michael was back to winning in Canada but then started his string of bad races just like the first ones.
In Nurburgring he clashed into Montoya when he refused to being overtaken, he was lucky that the marshals
pulled him out of the gravel trap. That later helped him winning the WDC, (those points he got from the marshals helping him)
In France he did an good race (as always) but he couldn´t beat the Williams.
In GB Schumacher had a poor race (as always) while Rubens had a hat trick, pole, fl and win.
In germany Schumacher had again a poor race and qualifying, Rubens qualified 3:rd btw
In Hungary Schumacher had a even worse weekend, 8:th on the grid and 1 second off the pole time and 0,6 seconds
slower than Rubens. He was 8:th in the race too and was lapped. Rubens did ok until his rear ripped off his car.
In Monza Schumacher and Ferrari was back on form, maybe because of the tire manipulation from the FIA.
Schumacher won and Rubens 3:rd in both race and qualifying.
Schumacher was very lucky in america when the rain fell during the race so his superior Bridgestone wet tires
could give him an easy win in the Ferrari. He wasn´t so fast in the dry qualifying (7:th) wile Rubens was 2:nd
In Japan he was unlucky with the weather during qualifying but manage a 14:th, but he had a poor race
ending in 8:th position while Rubens saved his title hopes being on pole and winning the race.

Kimi had 1 win and 2 poles, DC had 1 win and zero poles, Montoya had 2 wins and 1 pole, Ralf had 2 wins and 3 poles
Alonso had 2 poles and 1 win.

Michael had 5 poles and 6 wins. Rubens had 3 poles and 2 wins = half of wins and poles to
the Ferrari team alone. They also screwed up and had several bad races. To me that´s an indicator that Ferrari was clearly
the team to have in 2003!!
It´s also interesting to compair Rubens 2003 season with his 2009 season in the superior Brawn. 2 wins and 1 pole
with better reliability.

So please stops these rediculous myths about Michael winning championships in inferior cars

#9385 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 21 April 2011 - 02:49

1994 = The Williams was the car to have. It was better than the Benetton with a FORD V8. You got to give it to Michael. A championship earned by a driver! Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles

1995 = I guess the Williams was better but the Benetton wasn't that bad. Driver + Car made the difference.
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles

1996 = I dont think any other driver could have ever won 3 gps in that Ferrari. Michael made the difference back then!
Best driver on the grid = Villenueve for that year. He was something special I must admit!

1997 = The Williams was sooo the car to have. Jacques may have won the championship, but everyone in their right minds knew the Michael was the driver of the year. Midway through the season the Ferrari's had a hard time qualifying competitively, the car was so off the pace that its amazing to think Michael went into the final round leading on points!!!!
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles.

1998 = I can still recall Hakkinen's post qualifying gaffe "It will take a MIRACLE for anyone to beat us this year" After the Argentine race, Michael was quick to pounce on that one, he says "We finally have a Miracle." The look on Mika's face was worth a million! The Mclaren - Bridgestone combo was the car to have. The championship should have never got around until the last race. To me 1998 was the epitome of Schumacher Brilliance. I dunno how many races I'd watched that made me have goosebumps. You couldn't get proper sleep the night after the races becuz you'd still not gotten over his brilliant drives.
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles. One particular event that has not been discussed in the posts out year is Monaco 1998 qualifying. He had missed the Saturday Free Practice due to some issue, and he had to got straight out into qualifying in the T3 car. He managed to secure 4th in a car that he had never driven b4 that wknd!!!! During the race, he managed to overtake Alex Wurz. Can you believe it, overtaking a Renault at Monaco!!!! What miffed me most was when Louise Goodman interviewed Alex Wurz and she said, "That was great racing Alex, you were able to make Michael fight hard to get that position from you." Holly Crap, somebody overtakes @Monaco and all she got to say is congratulations to Alex for ruining Michaels day!!!! Thank God we switched over from ITV feed to Steve Slater!

2000 = We've had plenty of seasons with championships won due to some advantage or the other. But come Suzuka, it was the driver skill that won it for Michael. Mika was fast in the Mclaren and I do not doubt had the race stayed dry he would have won it. But when the conditions were most challenging, with the title in the balance it was one of Michael's GREATEST ever race to win the championship.
Best driver on the grid = Michael the worthy champion. A lot of people have a lot of theories about why Michael cried after the Monza race. Michael did say it was thinkin of Aryton. But I have a different viewpoint. After the Belgian GP, Michael had lost all the lead he had built up to that point. What looked like a championship winning season was turning out to be a disaster. People were even questioning if Michael was the best driver out there? To which Michael had replied that he never thought he was the best racing driver. I think even he had begun to lose hope in winning the championship and more sadly in himself. There was so much pressure on him, us fans during the Monza weekend. That, when it finally finished with a win - I guess it's a release of emotions. I as a fan had tears in my eyes, so why wouldn't he?

2001 = He had a very good car with him, and he made sure he got the job done well!
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles.

2002 = Ferrari was the car to have.
Best car on the grid = Ferrari.

2003 = The Michelins were the tyres to have that season. Schumacher didnt start off too nice. But its amazing how as the season progresses, he gets better and better.
Best driver on the grid = Michael by Miles. The race that had it all was USA 2003, reminiscent of China 2006 I'd say?? Plus the stunning move on Montoya at Monza for the lead was the stuff of Legend.

2004 = Ferrari was the car to have.
Best car on the grid = Ferrari.

2006 = I thought Schumacher had lost that cutting edge by the end of 2004 and the start of 2006 pretty much reinforced that. Schumacher's decision to retire was taken around that point itself. He must have thought that he no longer had that edge over others, so its best to retire while you're still somewhat good than being nothing at all. All that changed during the latter half of the season. It was like 1998 all over again. China 2006 was like coming from being dead and to feel alive!!!! He looked every bit the man who knew how to drive on the ragged edge. Brazil 2006 was like a fairytale ending even if it didnt get him the championship. We got to see the entire 16 years of Michael's F1 career in that 1-1/2 hour. The never say die attitude even the chips are down. And some of those moves were the most daring one had ever watched in F1. It was the perfect ending to the Schumacher Era.
Best driver on the grid = Simply Michael!

I don't think Alonso, Hamilton, or Vettel would ever be able to make that sort of impression on me. They have won quite a bit between themselves but not on Schumachers level. Yes, Vettel @Monza was a rare exception. But how many other drives have we had where we could sum it up by saying Wow! That win was all about the driver and not the car! Thats why Schumacher's legacy will never be forgotten!


Very good post, thank you.

#9386 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 April 2011 - 03:21

I think you may have things a bit confused there though. Stay with me Im not being rude.

One way to make a car faster is to stiffen it up and make things, on the whole, more nervous. There is a balance between the theoretical speed the car can get and its drivability. You can make it easier and more comfortable but it costs you. The benetton was not that fast but it did lend itself to stiffening up and making it so the driver had to work hard ata it. MS didn't WANT a twitchy piece of crap, but he was able to deal with one, and therefore gain the speed benefit his lesser teammates could not.

Other really great drivers would no doubt have been able to use some of that speed too, but drivers who, in a nice friendly car, would have been a tenth or two off that great driver were suddenly all at sea.

All through his career, the consensus was that he likes a stiff nervous car, it might be a piece of crap to other people, but he actually likes it that way. It's a relative thing, it's a piece of crap to drive for other poeple, but it works for him. To my knowledge, it's not that the Bennetton was crap and he drove around it, it was purpose built. To my knowledge...... I'm sure you've analized his driving style and it requires a very sharp front end like that, so, it makes perfect sense.

Edited by Birelman, 21 April 2011 - 03:24.


#9387 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,835 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:00

The 2000 Ferrari was slightly slower than the McLarens, and it struggled a little bit during that summer, but it was Schumacher who made the difference. The 2000 Car was a very fast car, but it had slightly less speed than the McLarens did.

#9388 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:02

The 2000 Ferrari was slightly slower than the McLarens, and it struggled a little bit during that summer, but it was Schumacher who made the difference. The 2000 Car was a very fast car, but it had slightly less speed than the McLarens did.

True, but, as with most Newey cars, the McLaren started the year very fragile, and the Ferrari was enjoying awesome reliability, lets not kid ourselves.

#9389 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,835 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:04

True, but, as with most Newey cars, the McLaren started the year very fragile, and the Ferrari was enjoying awesome reliability, lets not kid ourselves.


Yes, this is true.

I just recall that in 2000, say from Monaco until Spa, Ferrari had some bad luck, some accidents and engineering failures (2000 Monaco was suspension failure).



#9390 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:21

Yes, this is true.

I just recall that in 2000, say from Monaco until Spa, Ferrari had some bad luck, some accidents and engineering failures (2000 Monaco was suspension failure).

Yea, nip and tuck all year, as it should be, both drivers drove great, as it should be!!! :)

#9391 Jomyboy

Jomyboy
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 April 2011 - 04:27

Mika had qualified something like a second faster than Michael at Spa 2000. He had a 10 km speed advantage over Michael on the long straight. Thats like driving with DRS throughout the straight.

#9392 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,995 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 21 April 2011 - 05:08

All through his career, the consensus was that he likes a stiff nervous car, it might be a piece of crap to other people, but he actually likes it that way. It's a relative thing, it's a piece of crap to drive for other poeple, but it works for him. To my knowledge, it's not that the Bennetton was crap and he drove around it, it was purpose built. To my knowledge...... I'm sure you've analized his driving style and it requires a very sharp front end like that, so, it makes perfect sense.

He likes a car that can be dialed to a pointy front end, but the 1995 benetton, by all accounts, was just a mess, and only setting it up to an extreme version of that made it any good at all. Yes fortunate that Michael tends to deal with that kind of thing better than the opposite, but not by any means some kind of ideal car for him, I think thats a post-facto myth.

#9393 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 April 2011 - 07:29

In 2000, the Mc was faster, unless one really think Coulthard was, over a season, as fast as Schumacher on a single lap. The gap was at least 0.3s a lap in qual configuration.
The Ferrari had a special qual engine, McLaren did not. The difference in race trim was even more.

The Ferrari had a serious probleme of tyre wear - and that was the main problem, the one that almost cost the title - seen as soon as Spain (Schumacher was loosing ground from mid-run to pits, long before the race turned into a fiasco), but the evidence of it was postponed because of the black summer (France, Austria, Germany where he did not last enough in the race). The dramatic situation appearead clearly in Budapast and Spa. It was resolved in extremis at Monza. Schumi-haters had a good time when he almost won a race with a more than 1s a lap slower car at Spa, but that was their last moment of happiness.

After that, the only thing left they had was repeating for years all their BS.

Edited by dde, 21 April 2011 - 07:31.


#9394 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 April 2011 - 07:46

Schumi-haters had a good time when he almost won a race with a more than 1s a lap slower car at Spa, but that was their last moment of happiness.


How exactly did you come to the conclusion that the McLaren was more than a second per lap faster than the Ferrari?


#9395 dde

dde
  • Member

  • 800 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:14

Lap times from Hakkinen and Coulthard. Qualifying. Without the rain and Mika's spin, that would have been en easy 1-2 for McLaren.

#9396 Professor Arturo

Professor Arturo
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:26

Yeah, it looked awesome in the hands of every driver who sat in it. Oh, hang on ...

1) Who were those teammates? Injured J.J Lehto and a rookie Jos Verstappen.
2) Benetton did not have the financial resources to supply two cars equally, it was the same case as with Senna at Lotus. So they concentrated on the better driver.
Make no mistake, the Benetton was a superb car in 1994 and completely dominated most races.

Schumi-haters had a good time when he almost won a race with a more than 1s a lap slower car at Spa, but that was their last moment of happiness.

:rotfl:
Fastest laps:
1 Rubens BARRICHELLO 1'53''803 30
2 David COULTHARD 1'54''131 0.328 32
3 Michael SCHUMACHER 1'54''252 0.449 18
4 Mika HAKKINEN 1'54''469 0.666 32

#9397 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:36

Lap times from Hakkinen and Coulthard.


Yet schumachers team mate had the fastest lap.

Qualifying.


Mika was over a second faster in qualifying. But if Schumacher could make that second per lap up on Sunday, why not on Saturday? wouldn't that make mika as fast as Micheal over a lap, yet a second slower per lap in a race?

Without the rain and Mika's spin, that would have been en easy 1-2 for McLaren.


Mika was the faster car out there in the full wet at the start, and his spin didn't loose that much time. The Ferrari must have been as fast for it to have been a threat.

#9398 Cult

Cult
  • Member

  • 658 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 21 April 2011 - 08:59

Yet schumachers team mate had the fastest lap.



Mika was over a second faster in qualifying. But if Schumacher could make that second per lap up on Sunday, why not on Saturday? wouldn't that make mika as fast as Micheal over a lap, yet a second slower per lap in a race?



Mika was the faster car out there in the full wet at the start, and his spin didn't loose that much time. The Ferrari must have been as fast for it to have been a threat.


This post is very obtuse especially the middle part. The race and qualifying are hugely different scenarios and taking one race and trying to state things like Schumacher is a second faster a lap in the race is clearly not true as it was one race with changeable conditions.

And fastest laps don't exactly tell us everything. If you look at the fastest laps you can see that three cars set their fastest lap within 3 laps of each other while the other didn't. Do you feel in changeable conditions that may have been a factor? Perhaps but this evidence is not very strong either. Qualifying was often the true test of where the car was at in the 90s and early 2000s and a second gap clearly doesn't show the Ferrari's as the faster car so stop trying to justify something which is tenuous at best.

Also there's an easy suggestion why Mika was the fastest at the start on wets, he had the faster car...although the Ferrari's probably had more of a wet set-up given the huge straight line differential.

#9399 Professor Arturo

Professor Arturo
  • Member

  • 240 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 21 April 2011 - 09:04

Qualifying was often the true test of where the car was at in the 90s and early 2000s and a second gap clearly doesn't show the Ferrari's as the faster car so stop trying to justify something which is tenuous at best.

Schumacher didnt get a good lap in qualifying, he had traffic problems and made mistakes. The true difference was not 1 second. You have to remember that Coulthard also was over 1 second behind MH.

Advertisement

#9400 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 April 2011 - 10:26

This post is very obtuse especially the middle part. The race and qualifying are hugely different scenarios and taking one race and trying to state things like Schumacher is a second faster a lap in the race is clearly not true as it was one race with changeable conditions.

And fastest laps don't exactly tell us everything. If you look at the fastest laps you can see that three cars set their fastest lap within 3 laps of each other while the other didn't. Do you feel in changeable conditions that may have been a factor? Perhaps but this evidence is not very strong either. Qualifying was often the true test of where the car was at in the 90s and early 2000s and a second gap clearly doesn't show the Ferrari's as the faster car so stop trying to justify something which is tenuous at best.

Also there's an easy suggestion why Mika was the fastest at the start on wets, he had the faster car...although the Ferrari's probably had more of a wet set-up given the huge straight line differential.


and this post is very useless. :rolleyes:

You may have missed the flow of discussion, but I was not the one trying to use fast laps or qualifying to argue the speed of the cars. The claim was made that the McLaren was more than a second per lap faster. The only evidence given for this was qualifying and the lap times in the race. The first point proves nothing, and the second point proves the opposite. I was not the one arguing for it.

The race and qualifying are hugely different scenarios


Yes, followed by,

Qualifying was often the true test of where the car was at in the 90s and early 2000s and a second gap clearly doesn't show the Ferrari's as the faster car


Not at all. Totally different set up, different engines even, radiators and brake ducts half covered, plus very little fuel. Cars were very different from Saturday and Sunday. If you believe the above quote to be true, then look at how many poles the Ferrari had that year.