Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#9401 Goron3

Goron3
  • Member

  • 705 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:26

Back in those days, qualifying was not a done deal to win the race. You could set your car up for qualifying in one way and go the other route for racing on Sunday.

On true pace form, the Mclarens were that much faster than the Ferrari.
On Sunday, both teams must have gone for a somewhat in-between setup to be competitive on a wet-dry track. Schumacher was the faster driver when it was wet, but when it became totally dry Mika was reeling in Schumacher by over a second or two in the last couple of laps. Its only because it rained that Schumacher was that much ahead, otherwise, it was gonna be easy-peasy for Hakkinen.


Very true. Mika would've walked it had he not spun early on whilst leading on the wet patch.

Advertisement

#9402 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:38

Back in those days, qualifying was not a done deal to win the race. You could set your car up for qualifying in one way and go the other route for racing on Sunday.

On true pace form, the Mclarens were that much faster than the Ferrari.
On Sunday, both teams must have gone for a somewhat in-between setup to be competitive on a wet-dry track. Schumacher was the faster driver when it was wet, but when it became totally dry Mika was reeling in Schumacher by over a second or two in the last couple of laps. Its only because it rained that Schumacher was that much ahead, otherwise, it was gonna be easy-peasy for Hakkinen.


It was only the damp when MS got ahead. In the full wet MH had no problem out in front.

Anyway, I don't get why MS fans are telling me that the cars in qualifying are different to the race. That's been my argument from the start, and hence why i got involved in this discussion. It was a MS fan that was claiming that qualifying was proof that the McLaren was a second per lap faster. The car on Saturday does not show the true pace of each team for Sunday.

#9403 merschu

merschu
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 23 April 2011 - 14:24

Here is a picture of Michael Schumacher's 91 race wins. :)

Posted Image

#9404 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 28,129 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 23 April 2011 - 14:56

Qualifying was often the true test of where the car was at in the 90s and early 2000s


Rubbish. The car used in Q was substantially different to the one used for the race back then.

#9405 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 April 2011 - 16:05

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.

In the race, Schumacher had his car set up for the wet conditions, that's the reason for the big speed differential in the dry conditions which you are talking about. Their cars were as closely matched as can be.

#9406 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 23 April 2011 - 16:17

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.

Well, I've never heard anything of the sorts, but if believing that makes you happy, you're completely entitled to your opinion :)

Lets just put that one behind us cus, It really makes no difference for the observation pointed out that Schumacher had a preference for that stiff/nervous car as opposed to his teammates, which was the point I was trying to get across.

For all I know, Michael's cars were always developed for stiff/nervous/pointyness nessesary for his driving style, and that (IMHO) amplified the laptime to his teammates (ones who did not prefer that style) many times.

That is all, it doesn't belittle Schumacher at all, and a completely realistic observation.

Edited by Birelman, 23 April 2011 - 16:28.


#9407 glorius&victorius

glorius&victorius
  • Member

  • 4,327 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 23 April 2011 - 20:16

Here is a picture of Michael Schumacher's 91 race wins. :)

Posted Image


nice which one is austria 2002?

#9408 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 April 2011 - 00:37

nice which one is austria 2002?

LOL! Nice comeback! :)

#9409 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 24 April 2011 - 00:50

There´s some reallt crazy assumptions here.

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


Try turning it around.
Schumacher has never _LOST_ a championship in what could be considered the dominant car.
Now look through history, how many drivers can say the same. Not many.
Senna? Prost? They both lost championships in dominant cars (they both lost a championship to their teammates even!! The ultimate disgrace)
So did Villeneuve, so did Hakkinen, so did Piquet, Mansell, Hill, Hamilton, Alonso, etc etc.

Who didnt?
Schumacher, Clark, Vettel, cant think of anyone else at the moment.

Thats the sign of the true champion, be on the ball all the time, if your car is good enough for the championship, TAKE IT.
Schumacher has done that better then anyone else in history. It could have easily been TEN WDC's.


#9410 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 24 April 2011 - 01:18

nice which one is austria 2002?

let's replace austria 2002 with indy 2002
what do you say about that?

#9411 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 24 April 2011 - 01:18

nice which one is austria 2002?

let's replace austria 2002 with indy 2002
what do you say about that?

#9412 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 24 April 2011 - 02:13

Try turning it around.
Schumacher has never _LOST_ a championship in what could be considered the dominant car.
Now look through history, how many drivers can say the same. Not many.
Senna? Prost? They both lost championships in dominant cars (they both lost a championship to their teammates even!! The ultimate disgrace)
So did Villeneuve, so did Hakkinen, so did Piquet, Mansell, Hill, Hamilton, Alonso, etc etc.

Who didnt?
Schumacher, Clark, Vettel, cant think of anyone else at the moment.

Thats the sign of the true champion, be on the ball all the time, if your car is good enough for the championship, TAKE IT.
Schumacher has done that better then anyone else in history. It could have easily been TEN WDC's.


And when did the drivers mentioned do that, except for when loosing to a team mates? I guess mansell and piquet in 86 comes close, but that was only because they were too busy racing each other (a problem MS never had to worry about).

How the hell can someone say that Hakkinen or Alonso etc lost a championship in a dominate car? What years exactly did these drivers you mentioned above have a dominate car, and they stuffed up their chance?

#9413 Totza

Totza
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 24 April 2011 - 02:26

Try turning it around.
Schumacher has never _LOST_ a championship in what could be considered the dominant car.
Now look through history, how many drivers can say the same. Not many.
Senna? Prost? They both lost championships in dominant cars (they both lost a championship to their teammates even!! The ultimate disgrace)
So did Villeneuve, so did Hakkinen, so did Piquet, Mansell, Hill, Hamilton, Alonso, etc etc.

Who didnt?
Schumacher, Clark, Vettel, cant think of anyone else at the moment.

Thats the sign of the true champion, be on the ball all the time, if your car is good enough for the championship, TAKE IT.
Schumacher has done that better then anyone else in history. It could have easily been TEN WDC's.

He was never leading the championship at any point in the season? so you're logic is flawed :(

#9414 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 April 2011 - 02:44

And when did the drivers mentioned do that, except for when loosing to a team mates? I guess mansell and piquet in 86 comes close, but that was only because they were too busy racing each other (a problem MS never had to worry about).

How the hell can someone say that Hakkinen or Alonso etc lost a championship in a dominate car? What years exactly did these drivers you mentioned above have a dominate car, and they stuffed up their chance?

And how the hell is losing a Championship to an Alain Prost, or Ayrton Senna as a teammate anything to be ashamed of?

The only thing I do agree with him is that great Champions take the opportunity when it presents itself, Hakkinen, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton (Among many others) have all stepped up to the plate when presented with the opportunity.

Edited by Birelman, 24 April 2011 - 02:45.


#9415 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 April 2011 - 02:46

He was never leading the championship at any point in the season? so you're logic is flawed :(

He does have a point, his delivery is the only flaw.

#9416 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 24 April 2011 - 07:53

And how the hell is losing a Championship to an Alain Prost, or Ayrton Senna as a teammate anything to be ashamed of?

The only thing I do agree with him is that great Champions take the opportunity when it presents itself, Hakkinen, Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton (Among many others) have all stepped up to the plate when presented with the opportunity.


Pretty easy, the McLaren car was undoubtly the fastest in 1989, but Senna failed to get the championship with it.
The McLaren was also the dominant car of 1984 and 1988, but Prost failed to take the championship with it.


#9417 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 368 posts
  • Joined: July 00

Posted 24 April 2011 - 07:58

And when did the drivers mentioned do that, except for when loosing to a team mates? I guess mansell and piquet in 86 comes close, but that was only because they were too busy racing each other (a problem MS never had to worry about).

How the hell can someone say that Hakkinen or Alonso etc lost a championship in a dominate car? What years exactly did these drivers you mentioned above have a dominate car, and they stuffed up their chance?


As you wish:
Villeneuve: the 1996 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Hakkinen: the 2000 McLaren was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Piquet: the 1986 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Mansell: the 1986 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Hill: the 1993 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it. Neither did he in 1994 and 1995.
Hamilton: the 2007 McLaren was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Alonso: the 2007 McLaren was good enough for the championship, but he didnt bring it home.

#9418 merschu

merschu
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:33

Here is a old Q&A from 2001 about Schumi haters which I still find very funny! This gives you an insight about there thinking process then and even now. ;)


GB: Your charming host, and naive MS fan.
A: A conglomeration of the local anti-'s, call him DangerCrew, or MP4/Hare?, or Frans Nomates.
______________

GB: Why is Ferrari faster than McLaren, Williams, and the rest in 2001?
A: It's simple, they are cheating, with the aid of the FIA.

GB: Gosh, how can you be so sure.
A: Well there is lots of proof, for starters there are the lap times.

GB: The Ferrari does seem faster.
A: Yes much faster, the better part of a second per lap in qualifying.

GB: Doesn't that happen every season for at least the first few races?
A: No, it's only happened once before in 1998. And in 1996 and 1997. Ok also 1999. Last year as well. It's pretty rare.

GB: I see.
A: What's most obvious is their speed out of corners, and lack of wheelspin.

GB: The Ferrari does seem faster.
A: Yes, HHF confirmed he couldn't get around them and their engines had a strange "backfire" sound to them on acceleration.

GB: HHF was trying to pass a Ferrari? I missed that.
A: No, it was a Sauber. They have the Ferrari engines and gearboxes.

GB: The 2000 versions right?
A: Yep.

GB: The 2000 Ferrari wasn't a second faster in qualifying than the McLaren.
A: True, but the system wasn't perfected in 2000, until the last four races. MS got 4 poles and 4 wins.

GB: I seem to remember MS getting caught by MH in Indy until his engine blew, and MS behind and losing time to MH in Japan until it started raining. He was being caught by Coultard in Malaysia. Was his car really faster in those 4 races?
A: Well it wasn't perfected, you could see it kick in when the rain started in Japan, Mika lost all sorts of time to MS. It's in the rain that TC is so evident.

GB: But 2001 qualifying has been dry.
A: TC also makes you much faster when it's dry.

GB: But Japan...
A: It wasn't perfected yet in Japan. It worked in the wet in 2000.

GB: MS seems to have caught MH and DC a number of times in the past 3 years when it rained as well. I though he was just a better rain driver.
A: That's what they want you to think! It's all been TC.

GB: MS used TC prior to 2000?
A: Yes. I know for a fact that MS had TC at Monaco in 1997. I could see his lack of wheel spin and heard strange engine oscillations at that race.

GB: Wow, he's been cheating all along then.
A: Yes, it's quite sad. Bernie and the FIA want MS to win, it's good for business, so they let them cheat.

GB: But MS didn't win in 1997-1999.
A: Well he would have if Bernie had his way.

GB: I though Bernie always had his way?
A: Almost always, but the Williams and McLaren teams have been too good technically for Ferrari to beat, even with cheats on MS car.

GB: Let me see if I understand what you are saying. MS has had TC in his car since 1997?
A: Yep, McLaren has tapes of the engine noise, it's basically what HHF heard.

GB: Ferrari has slowly been perfecting this cheat for the past 5 years.
A: Yes. You can tell the races it worked best at because then MS was leading.

GB; Now it's perfect and Ferrari is faster than the field.
A: Clearly faster.

GB: Sauber and Prost have the Ferrari cheat as well?
A: The 2000 version.

GB: They didn't look very quick in the rain.
A: Ferrari probably didn't give them the full system.

GB: Ferrari gave them a system that made funny noises and helped acceleration out of corners, but didn't work well in the rain?
A: Yes, the 2000 version.

GB: I thought the 2000 version, and earlier versions going back to 1997 worked best in the wet.
A: Only on the Schumacher car.

GB: So Ferrari gave Sauber and Prost a version that sounds funny and would raise immediate suspicions, but doesn't work as well as their 1997 version.
A: Exactly.

GB: Good plan.
A: They are very clever.

GB: Can anything be done to save the sport?
A: Sort of, all the teams will start using TC at Spain

GB: So the playing field will be level for the first time since 1996.
A: Yes.

GB: So we should see really close races between the top 4 or 5 teams again.
A: Yep, just like in 1996.

GB: 1996. Now those we the good old days, great team vs team racing.
A: Yes it was great. Williams in a landslide. Clever Brits.

GB: But I'm worried. What if Ferrari cheats again?
A: Well, they probably will. You'll know they are cheating if MS keeps winning races.

GB: And if MS doesn't keep winning we'll know he had been cheating.
A: Exactly. Spain will make it all clear. If McLaren or Williams is far at the head of the field then all is well in F1 and no one is cheating. If Ferrari is in front, just blame Bernie.

GB: It's so simple I don't know how I missed it. Thank you.
A: Quite welcome.


http://forums.autosp...php/t18372.html


#9419 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 24 April 2011 - 08:43

GB: Ferrari gave them a system that made funny noises and helped acceleration out of corners, but didn't work well in the rain?
A: Yes, the 2000 version.

:lol:
Priceless.

Advertisement

#9420 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,054 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 24 April 2011 - 09:24

As you wish:
Villeneuve: the 1996 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Hakkinen: the 2000 McLaren was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Piquet: the 1986 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Mansell: the 1986 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Hill: the 1993 Williams was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it. Neither did he in 1994 and 1995.
Hamilton: the 2007 McLaren was good enough for the championship, but he didnt get it.
Alonso: the 2007 McLaren was good enough for the championship, but he didnt bring it home.


Ok. How does good enough equal dominate? you said they lost in dominate cars, now cars good enough for the championship is what's counted. So why didn't MS win in 97, 98, 99, and 2006. His cars were good enough to win, proven by the fact that the cars he drove nearly did. If Alonso didn't "bring it home" in 2007, then MS has a mark against his name for not bringing it home in 2006.

#9421 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 24 April 2011 - 09:30

Fantastic! :up: :lol:

This is the reason I actually don't mix with people like that even in real life. I've always believed your preferences in your chosen hobbies (such as driver preferences in sport) reflects on the kind of person you are in life, and I wouldn't want to work with someone that has a value system geared towards failure and negativity. (usually MS bashers and Alonso fans)

#9422 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 April 2011 - 12:24

Pretty easy, the McLaren car was undoubtly the fastest in 1989, but Senna failed to get the championship with it.
The McLaren was also the dominant car of 1984 and 1988, but Prost failed to take the championship with it.

The problem your flawed logic has is that, you fail to account for who their teammates were. Alain Prost lost to 3 times WDC Niki Lauda in 84 and Ayrton Senna in 89 one is one of the greatest of all time, certainly one of his era, and the other possibly the greatest GP driver of all time, and Ayrton Senna lost in 89 to the other great driver of his era, nemesis, and also one of the greatest GP drivers of all time, the most decorated career second to Schumacher's. So what is there to be ashamed of? Certainly you wouldn't presume to compare those teammates with any that Michael had in his career, would you? The only Championship caliber teammate Schumacher had was an aging Piquet, and look how an aging Schumacher is looking at the mercy of a Nico Rosberg for comparisons of what beating an aging driver means :/

#9423 Unbiased

Unbiased
  • Member

  • 414 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:33

Schumacher and Raikkonen dancing:



#9424 Frans

Frans
  • Member

  • 7,701 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 25 April 2011 - 12:24

The Germans where singing that one little thing was wrong in this world, and that was that Schumacher didn't drive Mercedes. This was in a popular German song from 2006 somewhere:
Link:
Specificly at 0:47 secs into the clip.

#9425 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 April 2011 - 08:32

Schumi's Sekret Tageblog: Shanghai
http://www.planetf1....-Tageblog-China
"Lielblings Pudgie Wudgie Donut Face says she is going to get me a T-shirt with 'Schumacher - P11' written on it to wear after every qualifying. " :rotfl:

Edited by ivand911, 27 April 2011 - 08:34.


#9426 thrillercd

thrillercd
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:54

Schumi's Sekret Tageblog: Shanghai
http://www.planetf1....-Tageblog-China
"Lielblings Pudgie Wudgie Donut Face says she is going to get me a T-shirt with 'Schumacher - P11' written on it to wear after every qualifying. " :rotfl:


:p

Lielblings Pudgie Wudgie Donut refers who an what it means ? (his wife ???)

Edited by thrillercd, 27 April 2011 - 10:55.


#9427 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:55

:p
Lielblings Pudgie Wudgie Donut Face refers who an what it means ? (his wife ???)

Yes. I just get Donut Face(Oval I guess) thing, first two-three I don't understand. Lielblings come form Honey, Dear, I think.

Edited by ivand911, 27 April 2011 - 10:59.


#9428 thrillercd

thrillercd
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:56

Yes.


thanks :lol:

#9429 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 27 April 2011 - 18:15

Michael new website have good Gallery:
http://www.michael-s...ry/formel1.html
Video with Garage and telemetry shots. With Mark Slade.
http://www.michael-s...ery/movies.html

#9430 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 April 2011 - 00:40

Fantastic! :up: :lol:

This is the reason I actually don't mix with people like that even in real life. I've always believed your preferences in your chosen hobbies (such as driver preferences in sport) reflects on the kind of person you are in life, and I wouldn't want to work with someone that has a value system geared towards failure and negativity. (usually MS bashers and Alonso fans)


Oh, so you've got it all figured out have you....
I found the following a very interesting read from an article in Motor Sport magazine, heard of it?
It calls into question the way stewards operate and judicate certain actions on track.
And I quote:
"There is no question that, of late, the "nanny state" has taken complete hold of f1. For countless years Ayrton Senna and then Michael Schumacher in the years after, periodically behaved like homicidal lunatics on the track, routinely employing intimidatory tactics, either to keep a challenging driver back, or to unnerve him into letting them through. "Give way or we crash' was the sum of it. Disagree with me if you wish, but it is for that reason that, for all their sublime skills, I refuse - and will always refuse - to think of Senna and Schumacher in the same light as Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda and Prost all of whom resoulutely fought fair. Once the sport tacitly sanctions the "professional foul", all bets are off."
Mix with whom you please, but a value system geared towards your ideals is not one that I'd ever want to be a part of...and I'd say it's a bit more than presumptuous to say that MS bashers and Alonso fans (as you said) are the only ones to feel this way.......

#9431 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:40

Mix with whom you please, but a value system geared towards your ideals is not one that I'd ever want to be a part of...and I'd say it's a bit more than presumptuous to say that MS bashers and Alonso fans (as you said) are the only ones to feel this way.......


Oh sure, it's only your opinion, nobody's stopped you from having one so I don't know why you find it necessary to tell me you wouldn't want to be part of a value system geared towards my ideals. We get it, you don't like MS and you have your reasons -but so far it doesn't look like anybody on here really cares much for the same opinion you post every couple of pages or so.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you yet that by constantly moaning and whinging about Schumacher you are basically illustrating my point that his bashers are a negative lot that you'd want to avoid even in real life. They're a drain on resources, on morale and are insecure types that're a pain in the backside to work with. I can't stand Alonso for example because he's a whinger and a bad loser, I think he's setting a bad example for fans that worship him, but you won't find me moaning about him all the time... :)

Edited by BRK, 28 April 2011 - 09:41.


#9432 puxanando

puxanando
  • Member

  • 3,538 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 28 April 2011 - 09:47

. I can't stand Alonso for example because he's a whinger and a bad loser, I think he's setting a bad example for fans that worship him, but you won't find me moaning about him all the time... :)

:drunk: You can 'think' what you want, but a lot of people think different.......Alonso is much fair than Schumi!

#9433 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 28 April 2011 - 10:02

:drunk: You can 'think' what you want, but a lot of people think different.......Alonso is much fair than Schumi!


Yeah, he's so fair he thinks it's okay to blackmail your boss because things aren't going your way. Two teams brought down to their knees thanks to his unprofessionalism and lack of class, three scandals, first to moan over the radio, first to moan to the stewards: with a CV like that you'd get kicked out of your job. But hey, I'm not moaning and I don't post on the Alonso thread to complain -couldn't care less. This happens to be the Schumacher thread so off you go to your haven and happy fawning.

#9434 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 April 2011 - 19:32

Oh sure, it's only your opinion, nobody's stopped you from having one so I don't know why you find it necessary to tell me you wouldn't want to be part of a value system geared towards my ideals. We get it, you don't like MS and you have your reasons -but so far it doesn't look like anybody on here really cares much for the same opinion you post every couple of pages or so.

Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you yet that by constantly moaning and whinging about Schumacher you are basically illustrating my point that his bashers are a negative lot that you'd want to avoid even in real life. They're a drain on resources, on morale and are insecure types that're a pain in the backside to work with. I can't stand Alonso for example because he's a whinger and a bad loser, I think he's setting a bad example for fans that worship him, but you won't find me moaning about him all the time... :)


Spoken like a true fanboy.....I only quoted Nigel Roebuck, I was neither moaning nor whinging about Schumacher.

#9435 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 28 April 2011 - 19:42

Try turning it around.
Schumacher has never _LOST_ a championship in what could be considered the dominant car.
Now look through history, how many drivers can say the same. Not many.
Senna? Prost? They both lost championships in dominant cars (they both lost a championship to their teammates even!! The ultimate disgrace)
So did Villeneuve, so did Hakkinen, so did Piquet, Mansell, Hill, Hamilton, Alonso, etc etc.

Who didnt?
Schumacher, Clark, Vettel, cant think of anyone else at the moment.

Thats the sign of the true champion, be on the ball all the time, if your car is good enough for the championship, TAKE IT.
Schumacher has done that better then anyone else in history. It could have easily been TEN WDC's.


Yes, it could have, with a little luck.

I've said this before - the car doesn't drive itself. No matter how much of a material advantage a team or driver has, it still comes down to the guy in the cockpit producing. I can't imagine Schumacher ever blowing a 17 point lead in the last two races to hand the title to another team.

#9436 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 4,214 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 28 April 2011 - 19:45

I can't imagine Schumacher ever blowing a 17 point lead in the last two races to hand the title to another team.

Haha, he came close to blowing a 10 point lead at the end of 2003. He still managed to save it, though, if only just.

#9437 Kvothe

Kvothe
  • Member

  • 6,889 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 28 April 2011 - 19:50

Yes, it could have, with a little luck.

I've said this before - the car doesn't drive itself. No matter how much of a material advantage a team or driver has, it still comes down to the guy in the cockpit producing. I can't imagine Schumacher ever blowing a 17 point lead in the last two races to hand the title to another team.


Not even if he was in his rookie year?
Or was in the final race, and his gearbox messed up putting him to the back of the field?

#9438 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 28 April 2011 - 21:29

Oh, so you've got it all figured out have you....
I found the following a very interesting read from an article in Motor Sport magazine, heard of it?
It calls into question the way stewards operate and judicate certain actions on track.
And I quote:
"There is no question that, of late, the "nanny state" has taken complete hold of f1. For countless years Ayrton Senna and then Michael Schumacher in the years after, periodically behaved like homicidal lunatics on the track, routinely employing intimidatory tactics, either to keep a challenging driver back, or to unnerve him into letting them through. "Give way or we crash' was the sum of it. Disagree with me if you wish, but it is for that reason that, for all their sublime skills, I refuse - and will always refuse - to think of Senna and Schumacher in the same light as Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Lauda and Prost all of whom resoulutely fought fair. Once the sport tacitly sanctions the "professional foul", all bets are off."
Mix with whom you please, but a value system geared towards your ideals is not one that I'd ever want to be a part of...and I'd say it's a bit more than presumptuous to say that MS bashers and Alonso fans (as you said) are the only ones to feel this way.......


The intimidation technique —give way or we both crash— has always been present in F1. In fact, it was part of the 'guts' of being a great driver. Fangio used it more than once. The reason nobody complained is that is was an acceptable option in what was a very dangerous sport. The only thing one had to comply with was that the intimidating driver ought to leave room for the other to back up.


#9439 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 28 April 2011 - 21:38

The intimidation technique —give way or we both crash— has always been present in F1. In fact, it was part of the 'guts' of being a great driver. Fangio used it more than once. The reason nobody complained is that is was an acceptable option in what was a very dangerous sport. The only thing one had to comply with was that the intimidating driver ought to leave room for the other to back up.


No it was not. Back in the 50s 60s and 70s the 'give way or we both crash' mentality would very likely have resulted in grave if not fatal consequences for those involved.

Advertisement

#9440 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 28 April 2011 - 21:54

No it was not. Back in the 50s 60s and 70s the 'give way or we both crash' mentality would very likely have resulted in grave if not fatal consequences for those involved.

I am sure it existed to some extent. Senna and Schumi stretched it beyond the (IMO) acceptable limit though. One can see them as artists maybe, like Zappa or Andy Warhol, who both created moral rage in the beginning of their careers but when viewed with todays glasses are quite harmless. And Hitler looks almost like a nice guy compared to Gadaffi and Bashar al-Assad.

The border of what is acceptable has moved a lot and it will continue to move. In the early years the written rules were few and the sportsmanship code was complex. Now it is the other way around. It is inevitable because you can not rule based on arbitrary moral.

I am starting to believe that some of the sportsmanship codes of yesterday needs to be written down. With a price tag on them.

Edited by Hairpin, 28 April 2011 - 21:55.


#9441 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 28 April 2011 - 22:17

Spoken like a true fanboy.....I only quoted Nigel Roebuck, I was neither moaning nor whinging about Schumacher.



enough said then - we all know his opinion...

#9442 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 28 April 2011 - 22:48

The intimidation technique —give way or we both crash— has always been present in F1. In fact, it was part of the 'guts' of being a great driver. Fangio used it more than once. The reason nobody complained is that is was an acceptable option in what was a very dangerous sport. The only thing one had to comply with was that the intimidating driver ought to leave room for the other to back up.

You are utterly mistaken about this. Former GP champions from earlier eras are united in their disappointment in the ethical standards on track of a few (mainly two, one still alive though not showing much life!) drivers who show contempt for the wellbeing of their fellow competitors.

The worry is that this becomes an ongoing and growing tendency. Weekend warriors in their armchairs and silly fanboy hats with no personal experience of laying it all on the line on a racetrack make some really transparently stupid remarks. Like Rubens was a wimp for his outburst against Michael last year! :confused: That the cars and circuits etc are much safer than in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is no excuse for some of the heavy handed treatment MS has handed out over his long career. It had been hoped that he would return to the sport "for the love of it" and put away his excesses. Well he blew that away in one disgusting move which was inches away from having him thrown out of the sport for all time. His reputation is sadly diminished by these things, not erased. The longer you follow the sport closely you more you tend to see these incidents as unacceptable.

The building up of MS's career by the nonsensical dismissal of Senna and Prost just highlights the mindset of some jaundiced fanboys. All three drivers became bitter and placed winning ahead of honour. A lot of WDCs between them so please accept these drivers are all among the greatest of all time.

#9443 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 April 2011 - 00:50

I need to find the quote from a WDC driver from by-gone eras who said they were very agressive - they just weren't caught on camera as much abnd there was no internet to disect it! Someone will remmeber who said it, but I know we have discussed it here before.

#9444 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 April 2011 - 01:06

I need to find the quote from a WDC driver from by-gone eras who said they were very agressive - they just weren't caught on camera as much abnd there was no internet to disect it! Someone will remmeber who said it, but I know we have discussed it here before.

Mauybe this one, I think it Hawthorne but it's bedtime and I will not search:

“The slightest misjudgement could have meant disaster for everybody, but even so we usually managed a quick grin at each other when we passed – all except Farina, who sat scowling with concentration.”

#9445 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,512 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 29 April 2011 - 01:09

You are utterly mistaken about this. Former GP champions from earlier eras are united in their disappointment in the ethical standards on track of a few (mainly two, one still alive though not showing much life!) drivers who show contempt for the wellbeing of their fellow competitors.

The worry is that this becomes an ongoing and growing tendency. Weekend warriors in their armchairs and silly fanboy hats with no personal experience of laying it all on the line on a racetrack make some really transparently stupid remarks. Like Rubens was a wimp for his outburst against Michael last year! :confused: That the cars and circuits etc are much safer than in the 60s, 70s, and 80s is no excuse for some of the heavy handed treatment MS has handed out over his long career. It had been hoped that he would return to the sport "for the love of it" and put away his excesses. Well he blew that away in one disgusting move which was inches away from having him thrown out of the sport for all time. His reputation is sadly diminished by these things, not erased. The longer you follow the sport closely you more you tend to see these incidents as unacceptable.

The building up of MS's career by the nonsensical dismissal of Senna and Prost just highlights the mindset of some jaundiced fanboys. All three drivers became bitter and placed winning ahead of honour. A lot of WDCs between them so please accept these drivers are all among the greatest of all time.


The intimidation technique was not used to the extent it now is, in that we may agree. But how else can we explain the overtaking of Collins by Fangio in the 57 round of the Ring? After the Hatzenbach Fangio drew along Collins. The road was, as you know, 3 metres wide, and there was a bridge further down. Collins conceded the place because, in Fangio's own words, there seemed to be room for only one car and 'how brave can you get?'. Shortly after that, Fangio squeezed Hawthorn into the ditch in order to overtake him.

This is what I mean by intimidation technique. The amount of intimidation was less than today's because the cars were less responsive to handling and security was almost non existent.

But I think the spirit of racing includes a certain amount (a reasonable one, though), of intimidation.

So we may agree on this: there was intimidation but it was never as serious as it now seems.

Edited by RSNS, 29 April 2011 - 01:11.


#9446 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 April 2011 - 02:24

Mauybe this one, I think it Hawthorne but it's bedtime and I will not search:

“The slightest misjudgement could have meant disaster for everybody, but even so we usually managed a quick grin at each other when we passed – all except Farina, who sat scowling with concentration.”


No - think it might have been a Lauda quote..will see if I can remember where I saw it

#9447 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 29 April 2011 - 02:28

an old chestnut.

brabham was notorious for deliberately cutting corners to throw up stones for those behind. intimidation has always been a part of motor racing perhaps it has got worse and michael has certainly used it.

however the language in that article is ridiculously emotive. homicidal lunacy. huh?

can we name a driver who suffered an injury during a schumacher overtake? seemed to me that he and hakkinen always close but somehow never touching. the aggresive defense at spa resulted in what - exactly nothing - because perhaps both drivers also happened to know their own limits. he was also penalised for pushing frentzen in canada albeit no injury sustained. likewise much emotion re reubens at hungary but funnily enough not a lick of paint or scratch did he sustain. he deliberately turned into jacques but at walking speed - hardly an attempt to deliberately maim as the quoted article implies.

damon certainly probably believes the article is right but then he would. he had more trouble getting past michael than any other before or since. perhaps he should reflect on that common thread first.

#9448 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 April 2011 - 02:29

found it - back in 2001 - seems like they aren't quite as united as you believe Muz Bee..

Triple World Champion Niki Lauda has defended the aggressive tactics used by Michael Schumacher to defend his position, saying that similar things occurred when he was racing.

Lauda says that improved television coverage is to blame for the criticism of tactics that have been used for many years.

"The problem today is television," said Lauda. "The TV coverage is done so well, there are so many cameras now, you can see what everybody is doing. "In my day we used to hit each other off the road but if somebody complained afterwards, we'd just say, 'I don't know what happened'. Now you cannot really do that.

"What Schumacher did and what Coulthard did was just human reaction and I can fully understand it.

"If you are on pole position and make a bad start you think you'd better move over to defend your position.

"People complained but it is part of the show of Formula One and I don't think that FIA should interfere.

"If they do and make things more strict then in the end there will be less action and the sport will get more boring."

Lauda also expressed ideas on how to bring overtaking back to Formula One, making the racing more exciting for the sport's fans. He criticised some of the recent changes to the sport's rules, including 'grooved' tyres and the increasing number of chicanes on today's racetracks.

"Motor racing needs action," added Lauda. "Last year was better than the year before, but there is very little passing compared to motor cycling where they pass each other five times a lap.

"The problem with cars is that they have too much downforce and the wings are not there now to allow you to slipstream and pass other cars.

"The lay-out of circuits is also a big problem. They have reduced speed by putting in chicanes. They slow everybody down, but you cannot get the slipstream to overtake coming out of them.

"I don't see why these new tyres are used. They could reduce downforce and speed in other ways and leave the tyres slick instead of using what are half-rain tyres in the dry.

"There needs to be more action for the public because they are the ones paying for Schumacher's 33 million pound (50 million US dollars) a year salary. The people in charge need to think what to do to make it more attractive."

Edited by Raelene, 29 April 2011 - 02:31.


#9449 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 17,621 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:39

Posts deleted.

Members in this thread need to calm down. Using the words 'fanboy' or 'troll' is just another example of a personal attack. If you repeatedly discuss other members in this way, and arguing about them rather than their opinions, expect to be suspended or expelled from the forum.

#9450 Hairpin

Hairpin
  • Member

  • 4,468 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 29 April 2011 - 12:39

No - think it might have been a Lauda quote..will see if I can remember where I saw it

I was just joking anyway. What I meant is that although it has always been tough at the top level of any sport and all sportsmen in each era have considered some of their competitors being "over the line", I still think that Senna and Schumacher stretched that line more than anyone before them. That said, I am not the best judge of what happened before 1970