Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#9401 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,538 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.

Advertisement

#9402 Fortymark

Fortymark
  • Member

  • 5,796 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

#9403 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,494 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.

#9404 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.


#9405 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,433 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.

#9406 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.

#9407 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,433 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).



#9408 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!!! :)

#9409 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.

#9410 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,538 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.

#9411 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.


#9412 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 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?


#9413 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.

#9414 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

#9415 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 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.

#9416 Cult

Cult
  • Member

  • 507 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.

#9417 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.

#9418 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 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.

#9419 Jomyboy

Jomyboy
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 21 April 2011 - 11:07

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.



Yes, followed by,



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.



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.

Advertisement

#9420 Goron3

Goron3
  • Member

  • 641 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.

#9421 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 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.

#9422 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

#9423 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,456 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.

#9424 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.

#9425 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.


#9426 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?

#9427 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 24 April 2011 - 00:37

nice which one is austria 2002?

LOL! Nice comeback! :)

#9428 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 362 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.


#9429 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,777 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?

#9430 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,777 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?

#9431 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 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?

#9432 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 :(

#9433 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.


#9434 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.

#9435 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 362 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.


#9436 Martijn

Martijn
  • Member

  • 362 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.

#9437 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


#9438 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.

#9439 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 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.

Advertisement

#9440 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 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)

#9441 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 :/

#9442 Unbiased

Unbiased
  • Member

  • 414 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 25 April 2011 - 01:33

Schumacher and Raikkonen dancing:



#9443 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.

#9444 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.


#9445 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.


#9446 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.


#9447 thrillercd

thrillercd
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 27 April 2011 - 10:56

Yes.


thanks :lol:

#9448 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

#9449 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,798 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.......

#9450 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 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.