Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#10851 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 28 June 2011 - 19:00

The whole crap "Schumacher can win in any car" is in fact an over exaggeration brought by trolls and Schumacher detractors to tease his fans and negate the actual achievements with lesser cars. No man in his right mind will claim the above seriously.
It has always been the combination driver + car. And back then, when not everything was predefined and controlled by a computer, some drivers could extract a bit more from generally a lesser car. For example IIRC the 1994 Benetton had manual gear change. (have to check, not quite sure)
The same attitude from the same people we see now. Instead of appreciating that at 42 he is still competitive and in fact gaining in form, they want, no they even demand, him to do miracles.
It's childish and stupid. It reflects only the personality of such people - some, who have witnessed his career, cannot overcome the hatred, others simply do not know what they are talking about, because what they know they have learned mostly from internet forums.

I am a fan of Michael since the start of his career, but seldom take part in this thread, because it and some others are too far away from a sensible discussion. He knows his value, his true fans also know his value, so nothing can change history and facts, nothing can discredit his achievements in reality, only in the minds of some who most of all desire to see him fail and take the desirable for real.


I stopped reading after the 1994 Benetton manual gear change bit. :-)


Advertisement

#10852 exmayol

exmayol
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 28 June 2011 - 19:14

I stopped reading after the 1994 Benetton manual gear change bit. :-)


Cool! Please consider abandoning this thread altogether. Thanks.

#10853 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 28 June 2011 - 22:12

I stopped reading after the 1994 Benetton manual gear change bit. :-)

It was quite a time ago and that's why I explicitly said I am not sure, what I wrote was based on my memories of on-board on a blue colored Benetton where Michael's right hand constantly moves the gear change lever. But my memories may have got confused.

And, this is not the accent in my previous post. That same Benetton Ford B194 was weaker than the Williams back then.

This is from Wikipedia:

The Benetton B194 was designed by Rory Byrne for the 1994 F1 season. The car was closely based on the previous Benetton B192/3 and powered by a Ford Zetec-RV8 engine (produced by Cosworth but badged as a Ford). The electronic driver aids that had had such an effect on F1 over the previous seasons were banned, so the car had to be redesigned with the new rules in mind. The B194 was a light and nimble car that handled well and was most competitive in the hands of Schumacher on twisty tracks unlike the early Williams FW16 which proved difficult to drive thanks to Williams' dependence on electronic driving aids in the previous season. Michael Schumacher's B194 remained the most competitive driver/car combination until Williams introduced a B-spec car at the German Grand Prix.



#10854 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 28 June 2011 - 22:27

That same Benetton Ford B194 was weaker than the Williams back then.


I tend to disagree. If you look at the whole season it was a match for the Williams.

But i think the B195 was weaker than the FW-17 back in 1995.
Hill just f***** it up.



#10855 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 28 June 2011 - 23:02

The whole crap "Schumacher can win in any car" is in fact an over exaggeration brought by trolls and Schumacher detractors to tease his fans and negate the actual achievements with lesser cars. No man in his right mind will claim the above seriously.
It has always been the combination driver + car. And back then, when not everything was predefined and controlled by a computer, some drivers could extract a bit more from generally a lesser car. For example IIRC the 1994 Benetton had manual gear change. (have to check, not quite sure)
The same attitude from the same people we see now. Instead of appreciating that at 42 he is still competitive and in fact gaining in form, they want, no they even demand, him to do miracles.
It's childish and stupid. It reflects only the personality of such people - some, who have witnessed his career, cannot overcome the hatred, others simply do not know what they are talking about, because what they know they have learned mostly from internet forums.

I am a fan of Michael since the start of his career, but seldom take part in this thread, because it and some others are too far away from a sensible discussion. He knows his value, his true fans also know his value, so nothing can change history and facts, nothing can discredit his achievements in reality, only in the minds of some who most of all desire to see him fail and take the desirable for real.


With all due respect, you join the forum in April and claim that the "Schumacher can win in any car" is an exaggeration made by Schumacher haters to Discredit him. You seriously needed to have been here ten years ago if you think that these kind of wild claims are made up. Many schumacher fans in the 90's used to say "look at irvine", or "look at Herbert" or "Verstrappen" or any other team mate. "Look where the car is. That is where it would be with any other driver but Schumacher". The 96 Ferrari was worse than the Jordans. The 97 Ferrari was 2 seconds per lap slower because of one qualifying lap in Melbourne. That he could have won in a sauber that year because of one test session. The 98 Ferrari was a lap-per-race slower than the McLarens because of again, Melbourne. We were told over and over again how crap his cars were and it was him making all the difference. Even when he had the faster car by far in 2001 we were told that it was no faster than the McLaren and Willaims, it was all Michael making the car look faster than it really is. Again, "look at Barrichello's results". It was only after he got some unquestionably fast cars that some of the same fans started to tone down their claims. They would still say that the 03 and 06 Ferrari were clearly inferior, but no longer pretend it was midfield. Even in 09 many were saying that if he comes back he will show kimi how to drive and may even win with that Ferrari.

If you didn't agree with the above, you where classed a Schumacher hater. You were discrediting his results and bringing down his achievements. Now many of these same Schumacher fans come to this very thread and pretend that they never supported these outlandish claims. That the people that bring them up are in fact making them up, because again they are trying to spread Schumacher hate and discredited him.

These people simply can not fit the current schumacher with the old one. They built up such an unbeatable god of a driver and now he isn't there. They either have to pretend that the current Schumacher's age has slowed him down by a mile, or pretend that they never made the claims that they did in the first place. Those who try to hold the two together have to resort to a list of hypocritical excuses about team favoritism and bad luck to explain the lack of domination. Some of the more special fans rewrite reality to claim that he is still as fast an anyone out there and you have to look at the times to see that... But only after you factor in tyrewear/traffic/damage/strategy/petrov/etc, he really he is the fastest one out there :rolleyes:

If some fans wanted to claim that the 96 Ferrari was only the 5th or 6th or even 7th fastest car, and if you disagree back then you were called a hater, how the hell can we still be called detractors for reminding them of their insane claims? Drivers couldn't win in midfield cars in the 90's anymore than they can now. It is just more myth to pretend that they could.

#10856 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 17,491 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 28 June 2011 - 23:12

There's one very simple resolution to this - the search function. Loads of stuff going years back in Racing Comments archive.

#10857 MightyMoose

MightyMoose
  • RC Forum Host

  • 1,139 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 29 June 2011 - 00:07

Ok, let's check the facts as much as we can compare them to today.

On the basis that MERC is the 4th best car (RB, McL & Fer being clearly better on just about every track/scenario) then we can see what the 4th best car from 1992-2006 actually did...

1992: Ferrari 4th - Wins 0. 21 points, Alesi 2 * 3rd.
1993: Ferrari 4th - Wins 0. 28 points, Alesi 2nd/3rd, Berger 1 * 3rd.
1994: McLaren 4th - Wins 0. 42 Points, Hakkinen 1 *2nd & 5 * 3rd, Brundle 1 *2nd, 3rd.
1995: McLaren 4th - Wins 0. 30 points. Hakkinen 2 * 2nd
1996: McLaren 4th - Wins 0. 49 points Hakkinen 4 * 3rd, Coulthard 1*2nd, 3rd
1997: McLaren 4th - Wins 3. 67 points. Hakkinen 1 win, 2 * 3rd, Coulthard 2 wins, 2 * 2nd
1998: Jordan 4th - Wins 1. 34 points, Hill 1 win, Schumacher 1 * 2nd,3rd
1999: Stewart 4th - Wins 1. 36 points, Barrichello 3 * 3rd, Herbert 1 win
2000: Benetton 4th - Wins 0. 20 points, Fisichella 1 *2nd, 2 * 3rd
2001: Sauber 4th - Wins 0. 21 points, Heidfeld 1 * 3rd
2002: Renault 4th - Wins 0. 23 points, No podiums
2003: Renaullt 4th - Wins 1. 88 points, Alonso 1 win, 1 * 2nd 2 * 3rd, Trulli 1 * 3rd
2004: Williams 4th - Wins 1. 88 points, Montoya 1 win, 2nd & 3rd, Schumacher 1 * 2nd
2005: Toyota 4th - Wins 0. 88 points, Trulli 2 * 2nd, Schumacher 2 * 3rd
2006: Honda 4th - Wins 1. 86 points, Button 1 win, 2 * 3rd.

So, we can see not many wins out there, 8 in 15 seasons. 16 runners up, and 32 3rd position finishes. Effectively less than 4 podium finishes per season over that period and nobody would question that reliability is much improved today than in that time span. If you start 7th or 8th these days, you better be overtaking cars in the race cos they rarely drop out now, back then a comfortable drive from 8th could end up being a reasonable 3rd or 4th just through getting to the end.

Again, I fail to see why Schumacher in the 4th best car is expected to dominate when the evidence shows that the 4th best car is lucky to even be on the podium. Schumacher was capable of winning races in ways others couldn't, Hungary 98, France 04 to name 2 examples. Some of it was undoubtedly down to the car & the team, but at the end of the day, if he didn't get the job done, Ferrari wouldn't have had so many wins or titles.

Were the nuthuggers guilty of exaggerating his achievements? Of course! But to say he's now proving the haters/disbelievers right is also inaccurate. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

#10858 Wilgot

Wilgot
  • Member

  • 121 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:20

I don't watch BBC so I hadn't seen this. . Pretty funny I thought. :cool: (Don't know if it has already been linked here but whatever!)

#10859 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:24

Ok, let's check the facts as much as we can compare them to today.

On the basis that MERC is the 4th best car (RB, McL & Fer being clearly better on just about every track/scenario) then we can see what the 4th best car from 1992-2006 actually did...

1992: Ferrari 4th - Wins 0. 21 points, Alesi 2 * 3rd.
1993: Ferrari 4th - Wins 0. 28 points, Alesi 2nd/3rd, Berger 1 * 3rd.
1994: McLaren 4th - Wins 0. 42 Points, Hakkinen 1 *2nd & 5 * 3rd, Brundle 1 *2nd, 3rd.
1995: McLaren 4th - Wins 0. 30 points. Hakkinen 2 * 2nd
1996: McLaren 4th - Wins 0. 49 points Hakkinen 4 * 3rd, Coulthard 1*2nd, 3rd
1997: McLaren 4th - Wins 3. 67 points. Hakkinen 1 win, 2 * 3rd, Coulthard 2 wins, 2 * 2nd
1998: Jordan 4th - Wins 1. 34 points, Hill 1 win, Schumacher 1 * 2nd,3rd
1999: Stewart 4th - Wins 1. 36 points, Barrichello 3 * 3rd, Herbert 1 win
2000: Benetton 4th - Wins 0. 20 points, Fisichella 1 *2nd, 2 * 3rd
2001: Sauber 4th - Wins 0. 21 points, Heidfeld 1 * 3rd
2002: Renault 4th - Wins 0. 23 points, No podiums
2003: Renaullt 4th - Wins 1. 88 points, Alonso 1 win, 1 * 2nd 2 * 3rd, Trulli 1 * 3rd
2004: Williams 4th - Wins 1. 88 points, Montoya 1 win, 2nd & 3rd, Schumacher 1 * 2nd
2005: Toyota 4th - Wins 0. 88 points, Trulli 2 * 2nd, Schumacher 2 * 3rd
2006: Honda 4th - Wins 1. 86 points, Button 1 win, 2 * 3rd.

So, we can see not many wins out there, 8 in 15 seasons. 16 runners up, and 32 3rd position finishes. Effectively less than 4 podium finishes per season over that period and nobody would question that reliability is much improved today than in that time span. If you start 7th or 8th these days, you better be overtaking cars in the race cos they rarely drop out now, back then a comfortable drive from 8th could end up being a reasonable 3rd or 4th just through getting to the end.

Again, I fail to see why Schumacher in the 4th best car is expected to dominate when the evidence shows that the 4th best car is lucky to even be on the podium. Schumacher was capable of winning races in ways others couldn't, Hungary 98, France 04 to name 2 examples. Some of it was undoubtedly down to the car & the team, but at the end of the day, if he didn't get the job done, Ferrari wouldn't have had so many wins or titles.

Were the nuthuggers guilty of exaggerating his achievements? Of course! But to say he's now proving the haters/disbelievers right is also inaccurate. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.


Because what you have here are facts. The actual points of the teams that finished 4th in the championship. However, what the fans used to claim was that if Benetton of Ferrari didn't have Schumacher, they would have been the 4th best team (or even worse). That it was his great driving that got them more points than what they should have had, and the 4th best team in 96 (McLaren) was really 3rd best, it was just that MS pulled his truck up to 2nd in the championship knocking McLaren down to 4th.

What you said is 100% true. Drivers can not win let alone dominate in a car like the 2011 Mercedes (or a 94 McLaren, 2000 Benetton etc). What we were told though was that a driver like Schumacher can win in a car like this. That in a car like this he would have dragged it up to the front. If you didn't believe it, you apparently hated him.



Advertisement

#10860 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 01:55

I think you are exageratting...a driver like Schuamcher (and others) , could, and did, drag a car up...you are just exagerrating what was said/meant.

and there are times that a driver - and MSC was one of them, can make the 4th best car look better than the 3rd best car.

Edited by Raelene, 29 June 2011 - 01:56.


#10861 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 03:05

I think you are exageratting...a driver like Schuamcher (and others) , could, and did, drag a car up...you are just exagerrating what was said/meant.

and there are times that a driver - and MSC was one of them, can make the 4th best car look better than the 3rd best car.


The claims and evidence used to support the schumacher myth back then were at time so outlandish it would not be possible to exaggerate them. Friction circle anyone?

You have been around this forum as long as I have. You must have read the claims that if you want to see the true speed of the cars Schumahcer has driven, look at his team mate. When Irvine was in 11th on the grid, wasn't it said that this is where the other Ferrari would be in anyone else hands but Schumacher? Wasn't this how cars where rated back then, and therefore how Schumacher was rated? If he got 6 wins and his team mate got none, this was an indicator of him doing his magic in a slower car.

If Rosberg was qualifying in 15th in each race, I have no doubt the same fans would be saying that this is proof that Schumacher is doing miracles by dragging that Mercedes up to 7th place. That it is only the 8th best car and that it is Michael that is making the difference. Unfortunately, Rosberg is giving the game away by not underperforming in the same car as so many of schumacher's team mates did before him.

#10862 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 1,617 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 29 June 2011 - 03:15

What if you think both drivers are struggling with a car that is too conservative and with slow part development times? Which troll camp do I belong to?

#10863 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 04:50

I cannot believe this 'debate'. I suggest use of a better tool than digging up the past, it's called common sense. People are seriously comparing his performance at 42 to that in his prime. All I see happening here is that a few people that have adamant prejudices to begin with are trying to reinforce their bias (and making a rather hopeless case if I may add) by making invalid comparisons and assumptions, such as assuming it's still the M.Schumacher of 1999 racing today.

In my personal opinion you don't lose talent, of course, you do lose speed as you can never be as consistently quick as you once were. Schumacher has himself said just as much early in his comeback.

To quote spacekid's post from earlier in this thread:

Its the same everywhere. I recently popped onto a tennis forum ahead of the French open (not desperately interested, a casual fan at best) and there was a debate going on that Roger Federer was never a great player at all, and only won so much because he had no much competition. Everyone else playing while Rog was at his peak was rubbish.

Now, Federer at 29 is getting on for a tennis player and has clearly lost a touch of his zip around the court and so is 'only' reaching semi-finals instead of finals and winning. He may win another Slam event, he may not. But this apparently 'proves' that now there are better players in the field than in the last 10 years and he should never have won anything. Some of the posts you could swap the names around and put onto either forum and not notice the difference.

Its madness. I have no idea what compels people to reach those conclusions, but it doesn't seem to be restricted only to MS/motor sport in general.


As someone that hasn't been a tennis fan since the Sampras-Agassi days but still followed matches on and off, I had no idea there were people out there that had this ridiculous notion. I don't care much for any of the current players nor for tennis itself, but I know what Federer is and was, I know what the man was capable of and how talented he was, so this came as a complete surprise to me.

Think it just goes to show there will always be some people lacking common sense following every sport. Thankfully,I know for a fact this isn't the case among the wider audience that have no reason to hate Federer and can therefore bring some perspective to the table, and likewise with Schumacher. :)

#10864 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 04:51

Jazza

but your original claim was that people said he could win in any car - that's where you are exagerating

I think the point is that MS was supposed to be able to win in any car. His reputation was built on the the idea that in any team, in any given season, he would win races. When he won races in bad cars, all the experts claimed that only he could of done that.


I see now you are downgrading your original statement.... after I pulled you up on it. Ad mentioned by someone else above, that was a myth that people said he could win IN ANY CAR...

Do agree that a good driver can make a difference to where the car "belongs". IMO a good driver can. If you agree with that, why are we having this discussion.

Edited by Raelene, 29 June 2011 - 04:56.


#10865 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:15

I cannot believe this 'debate'. I suggest use of a better tool than digging up the past, it's called common sense. People are seriously comparing his performance at 42 to that in his prime. All I see happening here is that a few people that have adamant prejudices to begin with are trying to reinforce their bias (and making a rather hopeless case if I may add) by making invalid comparisons and assumptions, such as assuming it's still the M.Schumacher of 1999 racing today.

In my personal opinion you don't lose talent, of course, you do lose speed as you can never be as consistently quick as you once were. Schumacher has himself said just as much early in his comeback.

To quote spacekid's post from earlier in this thread:



As someone that hasn't been a tennis fan since the Sampras-Agassi days but still followed matches on and off, I had no idea there were people out there that had this ridiculous notion. I don't care much for any of the current players nor for tennis itself, but I know what Federer is and was, I know what the man was capable of and how talented he was, so this came as a complete surprise to me.

Think it just goes to show there will always be some people lacking common sense following every sport. Thankfully,I know for a fact this isn't the case among the wider audience that have no reason to hate Federer and can therefore bring some perspective to the table, and likewise with Schumacher. :)

Well said, I agree with you on most of the points but not on your conclusion of some fans lacking "common sense". I dont buy that. Infact I think most if not all members on this board are intelligent and have a good grasp of all things F1, especially those that have joined 10 or 12 years back. So then why the irrational and hateful posts ?

I was never a Schumacher fan, always rooted for the likes of Keke and Hakkinen while they raced, but you'd have to be absolutely blind not to appreciate the sheer amount of talent Schumacher had, which was so easy to see in the 90s and early 00's. There is no doubt at all that he is among the most gifted men to have ever sat in an F1 cockpit. And no, I'm not a "new fan" just because I joined the Autosport internet BB in 2010, I've been following this sport since a long, long time.

I believe the reason for the unusually high amount of vitriol against MS by some old posters on this board is not lack of common sense : It cannot be. It perhaps is because these guys were so heavily invested in rooting for their favorite drivers/teams in the 90s, that seeing Schumacher do what he did in those years really riled them up. Perhaps seeing their idols losing to Schumacher and then facing ridicule on this board and others, may have conditioned them to behave this way. This is the one chance they'll ever get to reclaim "lost pride" on the BB, so its no surprise that they type stuff like "He was always overrated, he was never any good" etc, because everyone who has watched even a handful of races from the 90s knew that the kid was something special.

PS : IMO, the difference between a good driver and a great one is approximately 0.3 of a second. So no, Schumacher / Senna /Lauda / Giles wouldnt ever be able to "lap the field in a Tyrell / Minardi" but they'd make the difference between being 40 seconds down and being 1.5 laps down.



#10866 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:39

Jazza

but your original claim was that people said he could win in any car - that's where you are exagerating



I see now you are downgrading your original statement.... after I pulled you up on it. Ad mentioned by someone else above, that was a myth that people said he could win IN ANY CAR...

Do agree that a good driver can make a difference to where the car "belongs". IMO a good driver can. If you agree with that, why are we having this discussion.


I'm not downgrading at all, and have not been pullled up on anything. Many fans back then did say that he could win in any car. I believe it was Peter windsor who made the statement along the lines of; Schumacher is a second faster then any one else. About the difference between a Williams and a Minardi.

There is a rewriting of history starting in this thread since MS return. His Benetton and Ferrari's are now good cars that were a little bit slower than the fastest car, where as back then it was claimed that his cars where midfield shit (proven by Verstrappen and Irvine) and he made all the difference. Its disappointing that this Schumacher hysteria at the time is now being erased like it never happened.



#10867 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 05:59

I cannot believe this 'debate'. I suggest use of a better tool than digging up the past, it's called common sense. People are seriously comparing his performance at 42 to that in his prime. All I see happening here is that a few people that have adamant prejudices to begin with are trying to reinforce their bias (and making a rather hopeless case if I may add) by making invalid comparisons and assumptions, such as assuming it's still the M.Schumacher of 1999 racing today.

In my personal opinion you don't lose talent, of course, you do lose speed as you can never be as consistently quick as you once were. Schumacher has himself said just as much early in his comeback.


No he is not as fast as he was in 99. I don't think anyone believes that at 42 he would be as good as he was at 30.

But at 42 today, he is still a fast and good driver. So how much speed has he really lost in 12 years. .1 of a second? .2? .3 even? That would make him at his prime about as fast as Rosberg is now. So how much has the greatest driver in history really lost with age? If he was really manhandling slower cars back then into positions that they didn't belong in, he must have had one heck of a speed advantage over Hill and Villenuve etc to beat them in their faster cars. So how much speed has he really lost to now be a tenth or two slower than Rosberg?

#10868 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:20

Well said, I agree with you on most of the points but not on your conclusion of some fans lacking "common sense". I dont buy that. Infact I think most if not all members on this board are intelligent and have a good grasp of all things F1, especially those that have joined 10 or 12 years back. So then why the irrational and hateful posts ?

I was never a Schumacher fan, always rooted for the likes of Keke and Hakkinen while they raced, but you'd have to be absolutely blind not to appreciate the sheer amount of talent Schumacher had, which was so easy to see in the 90s and early 00's. There is no doubt at all that he is among the most gifted men to have ever sat in an F1 cockpit. And no, I'm not a "new fan" just because I joined the Autosport internet BB in 2010, I've been following this sport since a long, long time.

I believe the reason for the unusually high amount of vitriol against MS by some old posters on this board is not lack of common sense : It cannot be. It perhaps is because these guys were so heavily invested in rooting for their favorite drivers/teams in the 90s, that seeing Schumacher do what he did in those years really riled them up. Perhaps seeing their idols losing to Schumacher and then facing ridicule on this board and others, may have conditioned them to behave this way. This is the one chance they'll ever get to reclaim "lost pride" on the BB, so its no surprise that they type stuff like "He was always overrated, he was never any good" etc, because everyone who has watched even a handful of races from the 90s knew that the kid was something special.

PS : IMO, the difference between a good driver and a great one is approximately 0.3 of a second. So no, Schumacher / Senna /Lauda / Giles wouldnt ever be able to "lap the field in a Tyrell / Minardi" but they'd make the difference between being 40 seconds down and being 1.5 laps down.


:up:

I said common sense as I like to think a lack of common sense is the lesser of the two evils and like to give them the benefit of the doubt. (the other being blind hate and prejudice blinding people)


No he is not as fast as he was in 99. I don't think anyone believes that at 42 he would be as good as he was at 30.

But at 42 today, he is still a fast and good driver. So how much speed has he really lost in 12 years. .1 of a second? .2? .3 even? That would make him at his prime about as fast as Rosberg is now. So how much has the greatest driver in history really lost with age? If he was really manhandling slower cars back then into positions that they didn't belong in, he must have had one heck of a speed advantage over Hill and Villenuve etc to beat them in their faster cars. So how much speed has he really lost to now be a tenth or two slower than Rosberg?





If you do understand he can't be as quick as he used to be why do you continue to compare his performances today with those in the Benetton or the Ferrari, in his prime? Of course he did a fantastic job in below par machinery, of course his teammates weren't anywhere near as good, what does any of that have to do with his performances as a 42-year old?

Difficult to quantify how much speed he would have lost, as I said, in my personal opinion he can still be as quick but not consistently, that's where he would lose a lot of time. Bring back any of the others that raced with him at 42 and they would be over a second off the pace. When Hakkinen tested for McLaren, he was what 3 seconds off the pace? I believe it is a measure of Schumacher's own ability and talent that he is still able to keep up with drivers much younger than him.'

Edit: come to think of it, people were hailing Hakkinen's performance as excellent for someone that had been away for five years (I thought the same), that being 3 seconds slower than Badoer was still good enough for the first test. At no point during his return has Schumacher been a second slower than anyone, much less 3 seconds. The double standards are not just shocking but also hilarious!

Edited by BRK, 29 June 2011 - 06:28.


#10869 Andrew Hope

Andrew Hope
  • Member

  • 7,441 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:32

I can understand Schumi hate these days, even if I don't like it. None of the drivers I've ever really supported have been title challengers, and I only really started paying close attention to F1 half way through his dominant years. I think this year, though, he's come of brilliantly. I was really, really hoping he'd get on the podium in Canada. I think since his comeback he's come off as intensely likeable, and he keeps getting better as the days slip by, and I wish him all the best. Would love to see him steal a win in the next season or two, even if it is just a one-off.

#10870 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,960 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:51

aww gee you see then you had to go and spoil it.

if I can paraphrase your argument you believe that he has only lost 0.3 sec per lap and as that is the gap you think exists between he and rosberg ipsofacto demonstrates that michael was only ever as good as a rosberg as good as he might be - good but no legend or one of the best ever.

well at least you cant beproven wrong even if few would accept your reasoning

sparkplug post was spot on. in a way my faith in him is growing again as I realise my original hopes on his return were optimistic. fact is he is holding his own after 3 yrs out and twice as old as some in the field. I saw recently that most fighter pilots ahve given it away by late 20's such is the reduction in physical performance - so dicing at this level being lessthan a tenth down on a quick lap specialist is no disgrace even if it falls short of his own hopes, expectations.

doesnt stop me admiring federers grace and style and see his ability - just that the success is harder to come by. lucky we dont rate jordasn based on his last season or ali in his last fights - duh.

#10871 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 06:58

If you do understand he can't be as quick as he used to be why do you continue to compare his performances today with those in the Benetton or the Ferrari, in his prime? Of course he did a fantastic job in below par machinery, of course his teammates weren't anywhere near as good, what does any of that have to do with his performances as a 42-year old?

Difficult to quantify how much speed he would have lost, as I said, in my personal opinion he can still be as quick but not consistently, that's where he would lose a lot of time. Bring back any of the others that raced with him at 42 and they would be over a second off the pace. When Hakkinen tested for McLaren, he was what 3 seconds off the pace? I believe it is a measure of Schumacher's own ability and talent that he is still able to keep up with drivers much younger than him.


Do I really? Or do you assume I do, because since I'm not a fan, I must be a hater?

I have not claimed that MS was a rubbish driver now, or in his prime. I have not claimed that since MS is slower than Rosberg now, that he would have been slower than Rosberg when he was 30. I have maintained that MS is showing himself to be fast now, although probably not as fast as when he was younger.

The problem is, unless he has lost about 1-2 seconds per lap, he could never have been a great as he was made out to be. A driver that could win races in cars claimed to be much slower, could not now be slower than Rosberg if he has only lost a tenth or two. Either Schumacher is absolutely useless now, completely washed up and should just give up in comparison to his former self... Or... He was never that great and all dominate to begin with. Probably the best, fastest, and greatest driver of his generation, but not to the levels claimed.

(Go back to the start of this thread, and despite many Schumacher fans expecting him to lose a tenth or two per lap to his former self, they still expected him to wipe the floor with Rosberg. It never happened. So what happened? Did he lose much more than a couple of tenths with age, or did he not have that unmatchable dominate speed to begin with? My answer: he was the fastest driver in his day, but not that much faster that he could lose a couple of tenths and still beat a good driver like Rosberg. Some of his fans however thought that he was that much faster, that even being a tenth or two slower with age he would still be miles faster than another driver and they were wrong. If that answer makes me a bitter hater, so be it.)

Edited by Jazza, 29 June 2011 - 06:59.


#10872 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:22

Do I really? Or do you assume I do, because since I'm not a fan, I must be a hater?

I have not claimed that MS was a rubbish driver now, or in his prime. I have not claimed that since MS is slower than Rosberg now, that he would have been slower than Rosberg when he was 30. I have maintained that MS is showing himself to be fast now, although probably not as fast as when he was younger.

The problem is, unless he has lost about 1-2 seconds per lap, he could never have been a great as he was made out to be. A driver that could win races in cars claimed to be much slower, could not now be slower than Rosberg if he has only lost a tenth or two. Either Schumacher is absolutely useless now, completely washed up and should just give up in comparison to his former self... Or... He was never that great and all dominate to begin with. Probably the best, fastest, and greatest driver of his generation, but not to the levels claimed.

(Go back to the start of this thread, and despite many Schumacher fans expecting him to lose a tenth or two per lap to his former self, they still expected him to wipe the floor with Rosberg. It never happened. So what happened? Did he lose much more than a couple of tenths with age, or did he not have that unmatchable dominate speed to begin with? My answer: he was the fastest driver in his day, but not that much faster that he could lose a couple of tenths and still beat a good driver like Rosberg. Some of his fans however thought that he was that much faster, that even being a tenth or two slower with age he would still be miles faster than another driver and they were wrong. If that answer makes me a bitter hater, so be it.)


You're first claiming to not know how much he really has lost in terms of raw pace, but then go on to question claims made by fans based on the assumption that he's only lost a tenth or two. Your answer to that question is again based on the same assumption. Is there even a central point your arguments are built around or are these just absed on random assumptions that reflect your own bias?

Here's my question: Michael Schumacher returned to test a Ferrari in 2007 and set the quickest time at a test year after his retirement. Mika Hakkinen returned to test a McLaren five years after his retirement just a year before Schumacher (and therefore in a car from the same generation) and was 3 seconds slower. Even accounting for the variables (fuel loads, tyres etc), a reasonable conclusion would be that Hakkinen had 'lost' at least a second and half to two seconds in the space of 4 years: you were assuming that Schumacher could not have lost more than 2-3 tenths in ten years.

Let me know if you still think that was a reasonable assumption to make so I can update the ignore list.

#10873 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,477 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:30

I agree that Michael's cars have not been given due credit. His team mates were tier two drivers. But having watched seasons from 96 to 00, as a Ferrari fan and Michael fan, i used to dread the Mclarens. On good days where Ferrari had the pace in qualifying, on so called Ferrari tracks like France, it was nerve wracking because i wanted Schumi to keep the pole, and Mika would sometimes pull out a fantastic lap to snatch the pole, that too in the final sector. And raceday was hell too, these two guys trading fastest laps after fastest laps, Ferrari wasnt too kind on its tires then, it wasnt as good as the mclaren over the kerbs, mclaren had better top end, if the Ferrari happened to be caught by the Mclaren on a straight you could see the silver car get the fantastic tow using its top end, on tracks like Spa... Mclaren had some kinda magic. And Mclaren's reliability was poor. Just saying these things out of memories. It was great those days. :) Thanks Michael, Mika.

#10874 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:51

You're first claiming to not know how much he really has lost in terms of raw pace, but then go on to question claims made by fans based on the assumption that he's only lost a tenth or two. Your answer to that question is again based on the same assumption. Is there even a central point your arguments are built around or are these just absed on random assumptions that reflect your own bias?

Here's my question: Michael Schumacher returned to test a Ferrari in 2007 and set the quickest time at a test year after his retirement. Mika Hakkinen returned to test a McLaren five years after his retirement just a year before Schumacher (and therefore in a car from the same generation) and was 3 seconds slower. Even accounting for the variables (fuel loads, tyres etc), a reasonable conclusion would be that Hakkinen had 'lost' at least a second and half to two seconds in the space of 4 years: you were assuming that Schumacher could not have lost more than 2-3 tenths in ten years.

Let me know if you still think that was a reasonable assumption to make so I can update the ignore list.


Mika was miles slower than what he would have been half a decade earlier. Any driver who has not driven a F1 for years will not get back in and go quick right away that very day. Micheal was not out of a car for ten years and then just jumped in before the first race. If he did he would certainly be slower than a few tenths. Instead he did not drive a F1 car for about two years, did a lot of testing to get back into things, and due to age was probably a few tenths slower than what he would have been in his prime. The two situations are nothing like each other. Ones due to time out of the car and little time to get back into things. The other is a driver who has had time to resettle in the sport, but is older. I highly doubt Mika would not find more speed if he had a few weeks of testing and not just a day.

I am not assuming that Schumacher could not have lost more than 2 to 3 tenths. Maybe he lost 4 to 5. What I am saying is that unless he has lost 1 to 2 seconds he could not have been as great as his fans make him out to be.








#10875 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 07:57

Thanks Michael, Mika.


Indeed. Mika was probably the quickest of Michael's rivals, those were good days even if it wasn't always a head to head.

My opinion is that Schumacher has lost a lot more than just a few tenths in raw pace over the years, as would anyone else that returned at 42 after three years away from the sport, and to these cars and tyres. But this doesn't mean he's useless now, it's plainly obvious to anyone that has actually watched the races that he's doing a fantastic job and is still able to compete with drivers much, much younger than him. He's in F1 on merit alone.

A young Michael would IMO have thrashed this same grid in equal cars to such an extent that we would have seen a repeat of the same excuses (competitors just not good enough etc), only instead of a Coulthard or a Barrichello we would have had a Hamilton or a Vettel.

#10876 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:03

Mika was miles slower than what he would have been half a decade earlier. Any driver who has not driven a F1 for years will not get back in and go quick right away that very day. Micheal was not out of a car for ten years and then just jumped in before the first race. If he did he would certainly be slower than a few tenths. Instead he did not drive a F1 car for about two years, did a lot of testing to get back into things, and due to age was probably a few tenths slower than what he would have been in his prime. The two situations are nothing like each other. Ones due to time out of the car and little time to get back into things. The other is a driver who has had time to resettle in the sport, but is older. I highly doubt Mika would not find more speed if he had a few weeks of testing and not just a day.

I am not assuming that Schumacher could not have lost more than 2 to 3 tenths. Maybe he lost 4 to 5. What I am saying is that unless he has lost 1 to 2 seconds he could not have been as great as his fans make him out to be.


But Schumacher did indeed jump into a car and set the quickest time in 2007. Both times are even measured up against Badoer's, who was second quickest in 2007 behind MS and quickest of all ahead of Hakkinen. If you think Hakkinen was only 'a few tenths slower' than he was in his prime, it would mean a 38 year old Schumacher was over a second quicker than a 38 year old Hakkinen. Unless, of course, the possibility that drivers lose a lot more speed over the years is admitted.

MS lost a lot more than a few tenths in ten years, that much is clear no matter how you spin it.  ;) It's a measure of his talent that he is still on par with current drivers and is able to do reasonably well, he's even improved upon 2010 and is doing a much better job in 2011.

#10877 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:12

Jazza


First you say many of his fans say he could wimn in any car. Then youndowngrade your statement to the 4th or 5th car then you come back with this again

Many fans back then did say that he could win in any car.

.

Autosport has an archive. Show me those manyu fans thay said he couild win in ANY car

I see you also ignored my question. Do you think a driver can put a car where ity doesn't belong? I do..and msc was ONE of those drivers and in his hey day he was consistently one of those drivers....but he couldn't win iin a minardi.


#10878 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 18,449 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:15

A young Michael would IMO have thrashed this same grid in equal cars to such an extent that we would have seen a repeat of the same excuses (competitors just not good enough etc), only instead of a Coulthard or a Barrichello we would have had a Hamilton or a Vettel.


:drunk:

But good tactical thinking on your part. After getting the dream that he would do great things in his comeback out of the system, let's at least use it to pile on the myth of his first career. :up:

#10879 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:16

Because what you have here are facts. The actual points of the teams that finished 4th in the championship. However, what the fans used to claim was that if Benetton of Ferrari didn't have Schumacher, they would have been the 4th best team (or even worse). That it was his great driving that got them more points than what they should have had, and the 4th best team in 96 (McLaren) was really 3rd best, it was just that MS pulled his truck up to 2nd in the championship knocking McLaren down to 4th.

What you said is 100% true. Drivers can not win let alone dominate in a car like the 2011 Mercedes (or a 94 McLaren, 2000 Benetton etc). What we were told though was that a driver like Schumacher can win in a car like this. That in a car like this he would have dragged it up to the front. If you didn't believe it, you apparently hated him.

Who are "we" and who are "they" that told you so? I've seen the same argument in several places but have not seen a quote of someone actually saying it. That does not mean that it has not been said by someone or a handful of overenthusiastic boys, but to generalize it to an universal fact is way over the top of being sensible.
If you know that it can't happen in reality, why then use it unless you need it as a counter argument to justify your words? You seem not to base your post on the facts and current state of things, but rather seek some moral advantage for things way back in the past and over fictional opponents.

Actually, now I am asking myself why is this argument going, since in your subsequent posts you showed we are more or less on the same opinion.
---
Oh, BTW, the day of joining of a forum does not mean it is the day someone has started watching F1 :) And length of membership does not bring any privilege or priority, I can assure you.

Advertisement

#10880 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:20

But Schumacher did indeed jump into a car and set the quickest time in 2007. Both times are even measured up against Badoer's, who was second quickest in 2007 behind MS and quickest of all ahead of Hakkinen. If you think Hakkinen was only 'a few tenths slower' than he was in his prime, it would mean a 38 year old Schumacher was over a second quicker than a 38 year old Hakkinen. Unless, of course, the possibility that drivers lose a lot more speed over the years is admitted.

MS lost a lot more than a few tenths in ten years, that much is clear no matter how you spin it. ;) It's a measure of his talent that he is still on par with current drivers and is able to do reasonably well, he's even improved upon 2010 and is doing a much better job in 2011.


FFS mate, I said Mika would not have been as slow if he had a week or two of serious testing. I see no reason to assume that Mika could not have gone faster with more time in the car. I don't know if he was just a few tenths slower or not. He did a lot of very inconsistent laps over one day and was just having fun. How you come to the conclusion that a 38 year old Schumacher is a second faster than a 38 year old Hakkinen I have no idea. Mika never got within serveal seconds of the cars true speed because he had been out of a F1 car for years.

If MS has lost a lot more than a few tenths, how about you give a ball park answer. 98 MS vs 2011 MS. If it is so clear that is it more than a few tenths, how much?



#10881 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:27

FFS mate, I said Mika would not have been as slow if he had a week or two of serious testing. I see no reason to assume that Mika could not have gone faster with more time in the car. I don't know if he was just a few tenths slower or not. He did a lot of very inconsistent laps over one day and was just having fun. How you come to the conclusion that a 38 year old Schumacher is a second faster than a 38 year old Hakkinen I have no idea. Mika never got within serveal seconds of the cars true speed because he had been out of a F1 car for years.


Yet another assumption.

If MS has lost a lot more than a few tenths, how about you give a ball park answer. 98 MS vs 2011 MS. If it is so clear that is it more than a few tenths, how much?


If you ask me, over a second easily. Against Hakkinen over a single lap, I would say he would have been 2-3tenths quicker in equal machinery. The problem is that Hakkinen was no slouch and you're equating him with the rest of the field.

#10882 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:45

Jazza

First you say many of his fans say he could wimn in any car. Then youndowngrade your statement to the 4th or 5th car then you come back with this again

Autosport has an archive. Show me those manyu fans thay said he couild win in ANY car

I see you also ignored my question. Do you think a driver can put a car where ity doesn't belong? I do..and msc was ONE of those drivers and in his hey day he was consistently one of those drivers....but he couldn't win iin a minardi.


Your right. Autosport does have an archive. If you don't believe what I said, either don't believe it or go for a skim through the archive yourself. It's ridiculous to go pulling up old quotes from posters, many of whom don't post anymore, nor am I going to waist hours of time reading through various posts many years old. Finding old quotes from posters isn't exactly like finding a reference in a news article.

As for your question, yes and no. Yes drivers can sometimes outperform another driver in another car from race to race. No, because a driver in a car a second slower is not going to be able to find that time out of thin air. They can only do it if the driver in front has an issue. So while the gaps between cars are measured in seconds, driver are tenths at most. Only fanboys think that their driver is making up huge time on other drivers because they have already assumed that one car is faster than another. When it is clear that one car is in fact faster, no driver is going to be able to make up that much time.

sharo

I didn't mean to imply that because you joined in April you were new to F1 or didn't have a right to an opinion. I'm sorry if it appeared that way. What I meant was is that some fans who made bold claims 10 years ago are now finding it hard to maintain those opinions years latter. The u turn is obvious for those who have been on the forum for years. Again, I didn't mean to imply your latter join date disqualified you from the conversation.

#10883 PoliFanAthic

PoliFanAthic
  • Member

  • 647 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:50

Just in regards to Michael's team mates being second tier drivers - I'd look particularly at Rubens and Felipe, but Eddie Irvine could also be included here. The latter two were both very close to becoming F1 WDC, with Massa losing out due to sheer bad luck. Also, the difference between Button and Rubens was considerably smaller than the one between Rubens and Michael, and Rubens has been better than Hulkenberg and Maldonado. Not to mention the fact that in 2008, Rubens got all the bad calls at Brawn, which put him out of contention for the title.

What Michael needs now is peace of mind and to adapt in managing make or break situations a bit better than he has since his comeback. That's what a midfield driver needs to know how to do in order to get the best results possible out of the car.

Edited by PoliFanAthic, 29 June 2011 - 08:51.


#10884 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:51

Yet another assumption.


How the hell is it an assumption? It's a fact. An unquestionable provable fact. Mika did not lap as fast in the car as the car could go in that test. We know that from the regular drivers lap times.

#10885 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 08:56

How the hell is it an assumption? It's a fact. An unquestionable provable fact. Mika did not lap as fast in the car as the car could go in that test. We know that from the regular drivers lap times.


The assumption lies in believing he was lapping seconds off the pace and did so for 80 odd laps. But you have your answer already.

#10886 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:02

The assumption lies in believing he was lapping seconds off the pace and did so for 80 odd laps. But you have your answer already.


Do you want to explain that a bit clearer? Im saying Mika never got with in a few seconds of the ultimate lap time of the car in his one of test. You say thats an assumption. How is it?

#10887 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:06

Well jazza if you are going to repeatedly make a statement and then refuse to back it up by looking in the archives I'm sure you will forgive me for not taking your statement too seriously....and think you are just stirring the pot ..or possibly trolling. You don't seem like a troll so I think its just pot stirring and I won't take you seriously then :)

Anyway come back to me if you decide to back up your statement.

#10888 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:11

Do you want to explain that a bit clearer? Im saying Mika never got with in a few seconds of the ultimate lap time of the car in his one of test. You say thats an assumption. How is it?


I'm saying the assumption is in believing Hakkinen lapped 3 seconds off the pace for 80 laps just because he took it easy and didn't push at all. You don't lap 3 seconds off the pace unless you've also lost a lot of pace in the meantime, that's what I'm saying. Perhaps a second after 80 laps, or 2, but it was definitely not a leisurely stroll in the park.



#10889 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:19

Well jazza if you are going to repeatedly make a statement and then refuse to back it up by looking in the archives I'm sure you will forgive me for not taking your statement too seriously....and think you are just stirring the pot ..or possibly trolling. You don't seem like a troll so I think its just pot stirring and I won't take you seriously then :)

Anyway come back to me if you decide to back up your statement.


I already gave you the Peter Windsor quote... Which you ignored.

I also only said it in one post before you started asking about it. I have not being going through page after page stating "you said he could win in any car...any car!!!"... So it is not exactly repeatedly making a statement.

Considering your old daily F1 motto was something like "taking the piss out of non Schumacher fans" I won't take your accusation of being a pot stirrer to seriously :wave:

#10890 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:27

I'm saying the assumption is in believing Hakkinen lapped 3 seconds off the pace for 80 laps just because he took it easy and didn't push at all. You don't lap 3 seconds off the pace unless you've also lost a lot of pace in the meantime, that's what I'm saying. Perhaps a second after 80 laps, or 2, but it was definitely not a leisurely stroll in the park.


He was not trying to return to F1, it was just for fun. If he spent two weeks of serious training and testing (and wasn't too worried about possibly damaging the car) I'm sure he could reduce that gap. It would be an assumption to believe that that was the best that he could do. If it was his best his times would be much more consistent as he would have Improved through the day. Instead his times were all over the place.

(in case anyone else reading this gets the wrong idea, I do not believe mika could return to F1. He was simply out the sport for too long and I doubt that 2 months of testing would ever get the spark back. But that test day proves nothing about the speed drivers lose due to age, which would be different for every driver.)

Edited by Jazza, 29 June 2011 - 09:30.


#10891 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 497 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:35

Jazza


First you say many of his fans say he could wimn in any car. Then youndowngrade your statement to the 4th or 5th car then you come back with this again

.

Autosport has an archive. Show me those manyu fans thay said he couild win in ANY car

I see you also ignored my question. Do you think a driver can put a car where ity doesn't belong? I do..and msc was ONE of those drivers and in his hey day he was consistently one of those drivers....but he couldn't win iin a minardi.


Doesn't take long to find Some. Some good reading here.

http://forums.autosp...w...t&p=2833782




#10892 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:42

He was not trying to return to F1, it was just for fun. If he spent two weeks of serious training and testing (and wasn't too worried about possibly damaging the car) I'm sure he could reduce that gap. It would be an assumption to believe that that was the best that he could do. If it was his best his times would be much more consistent as he improved through the day.

(in case anyone else reading this gets the wrong idea, I do not believe mika could return to F1. He was simply out the sport for too long and I doubt that 2 months of testing would ever get the spark back. But that test day proves nothing about the speed drivers lose due to age, which would be different for every driver.)


The point to that test was to avail of his feedback in developing the car and to compare how the cars had changed between 2001 and 2006. There is a quote from McLaren and Dennis that says the test was to be used 'to benefit from Mika's experience and obtain his feedback with regards to changes in downforce, engine and tyres that have occurred since he last drove an F1 car', and that "A driver of Mika's calibre and experience can only bring added value to our testing programme and his feedback after Thursday's running will be valuable to the team in our preparations for the 2007 season." Mika himself is quoted as saying: "This test is a chance for me to see how much F1 cars have advanced and experience first hand what they are like to drive today as well as providing the team with some feedback on various aspects of the car's performance."

How on earth would he have compared downforce levels and tyre grip & provided valuable feedback to the team in preparation for 2007 had he simply trundled around seconds off the pace deliberately? :lol: Of course he'd have had to push, if not on all but at least some of the 80 laps that he did.

My point isn't that Schumacher was 2 seconds quicker than Hakkinen or some such absurd claim --I've already made it clear in my answer to you -which you completely ignored- that I believe MS would have been 2-3 tenths quicker in equal machinery-- but that Hakkinen lost a lot of pace in the five years that he was out of F1 as opposed to the one year break that MS had when he did his test in the Ferrari. Schumacher would have lost a similar amount in five years, a bit less in 3 years, and a heck of a lot more if you're comparing the Schumacher of 1999 to the Schumacher of 2011. That was my point.

Reading the post above yours it just looks like you're posting to see attention, though, I've got to say.

Edited by BRK, 29 June 2011 - 09:44.


#10893 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:54

The point to that test was to avail of his feedback in developing the car and to compare how the cars had changed between 2001 and 2006. There is a quote from McLaren and Dennis that says the test was to be used 'to benefit from Mika's experience and obtain his feedback with regards to changes in downforce, engine and tyres that have occurred since he last drove an F1 car', and that "A driver of Mika's calibre and experience can only bring added value to our testing programme and his feedback after Thursday's running will be valuable to the team in our preparations for the 2007 season." Mika himself is quoted as saying: "This test is a chance for me to see how much F1 cars have advanced and experience first hand what they are like to drive today as well as providing the team with some feedback on various aspects of the car's performance."

How on earth would he have compared downforce levels and tyre grip & provided valuable feedback to the team in preparation for 2007 had he simply trundled around seconds off the pace deliberately? :lol: Of course he'd have had to push, if not on all but at least some of the 80 laps that he did.

My point isn't that Schumacher was 2 seconds quicker than Hakkinen or some such absurd claim --I've already made it clear in my answer to you -which you completely ignored- that I believe MS would have been 2-3 tenths quicker in equal machinery-- but that Hakkinen lost a lot of pace in the five years that he was out of F1 as opposed to the one year break that MS had when he did his test in the Ferrari. Schumacher would have lost a similar amount in five years, a bit less in 3 years, and a heck of a lot more if you're comparing the Schumacher of 1999 to the Schumacher of 2011. That was my point.

Reading the post above yours it just looks like you're posting to see attention, though, I've got to say.


It's called PR. His test would have not added anything to McLaren development :rolleyes:

I also did not claim that he was deliberately going slower than he could. But it was not a test session to get the fastest lap that he could.

Posting to see Attention? WTF.


#10894 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 09:58

It's called PR. His test would have not added anything to McLaren development :rolleyes:

I also did not claim that he was deliberately going slower than he could. But it was not a test session to get the fastest lap that he could.

Posting to see Attention? WTF.


But it was still a test session and it was to compare downforce levels\trye grip and so on, all of which are things that cannot be done unless you're doing racing speeds at least for a few of the 80 laps he did. This isn't hard to understand at all, so I think you're just evading the eventual conclusion.

Posting to seek attention is exactly what you're doing, you're only responding to parts of the post that would keep the discussion going and ignoring any answers that would put an end to this.

#10895 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:13

But it was still a test session and it was to compare downforce levels\trye grip and so on, all of which are things that cannot be done unless you're doing racing speeds at least for a few of the 80 laps he did. This isn't hard to understand at all, so I think you're just evading the eventual conclusion.


Mika remembering what a F1 car was like in 2001, and then comparing it to a car he has not driven before, would tell McLaren nothing. If they want to compare downforce levels they can just cheek the massive database they have on both cars.

Your right that a test below racing speed would not tell them anything... that is the point. Mika who has been out of a F1 car for years could not do races speeds first day back in one. So the idea that this supposed to be a valuable test to compare different cars is stupid.

Posting to seek attention is exactly what you're doing, you're only responding to parts of the post that would keep the discussion going and ignoring any answers that would put an end to this.


Bullshit. This started because you quoted one part of one of my post (calling it an assumption) and have dragged it on for a page about how this test somehow proves something about MS losing speed due to age. I'm not ignoring answers... There has been no question for there to be an answer to give!


#10896 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 18,449 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:19

....about how this test somehow proves something about MS losing speed due to age. I'm not ignoring answers... There has been no question for there to be an answer to give!


Here's is the answer.

http://forums.autosp...amp;pid=4273144

Age isn't the issue apparently, just the 3-year break is holding MS back, but only momentarily, all he needs is a some time in the car to become his old self again.

 ;)

#10897 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:27

Mika remembering what a F1 car was like in 2001, and then comparing it to a car he has not driven before, would tell McLaren nothing. If they want to compare downforce levels they can just cheek the massive database they have on both cars.

Your right that a test below racing speed would not tell them anything... that is the point. Mika who has been out of a F1 car for years could not do races speeds first day back in one. So the idea that this supposed to be a valuable test to compare different cars is stupid.


Pathetic. You've ignored quotes by the team and by Hakkinen himself that make it clear they were going to test to compare downforce levels between the cars, that Hakkinen spent time in the McLaren simulator with the test in mind, that there were even rumours at the time that he was going to make a comeback -and, as usual, made the assumption that they had no such intention and that all the quotes are useless since you know better than the team or can read Hakkinen's mind. Despite the fact that they would have had to approach the test with their own goals -goals that I've quoted above- and the simply logic that they would have had to at least start testing with this in mind, you believe McLaren wasted 80 laps and precious testing mileage and time by letting Hakkinen do 80 laps for fun.

Bullshit. This started because you quoted one part of one of my post (calling it an assumption) and have dragged it on for a page about how this test somehow proves something about MS losing speed due to age. I'm not ignoring answers... There has been no question for there to be an answer to give!


Eh, you were the on that quoted me. You asked how much pace I thought MS had lost between 1999 and 2011, my answer was over a second, which you then ignored. :lol:

I think it's clear as day to anybody following this that I've made my point, so that's all from my side.


#10898 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:29

Here's is the answer.

http://forums.autosp...amp;pid=4273144

Age isn't the issue apparently, just the 3-year break is holding MS back, but only momentarily, all he needs is a some time in the car to become his old self again.

;)


Haha thanks.

(On a side note, that is some impressively fast forum searching.)



#10899 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:30

Here's is the answer.

http://forums.autosp...amp;pid=4273144

Age isn't the issue apparently, just the 3-year break is holding MS back, but only momentarily, all he needs is a some time in the car to become his old self again.

;)


But that just proves what I said earlier on right here, that he cannot be consistently quick and would lose a lot of time as a result. I've even used the phrase 'what you do lose a lot of ' there, or are you too blinded to read? :D

The only difference is that I -like many others- thought Schumacher could overcome even this deficit with time, this hasn't happened.

Advertisement

#10900 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,052 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 29 June 2011 - 10:38

I think it's clear as day to anybody following this that I've made my point, so that's all from my side.


Depends on how much weed they had before they started reading.

Your point is not as clear as you think it is. I have been honestly trying to debate this, I just don't know what point you are actually trying to make. Maybe it does make sense to someone, but I honestly can not follow it. None of my replies having been trying to keep it going for the fun of it, I just don't get where you were trying to go.

Maybe we will have better luck next debate. Cya :wave: