Some 14 months ago you wondered "What's all this Michael part I/II stuff?". Nowadays all you seem to do is propagating how different MS part I was to part II, seconds faster and all...
Looks more like a U-turn of hamiltonesque proportions to me!
Again, what I said back then and what I've been arguing now are the same with one
difference. I said age takes away some of the edge in that you'd lost the ability to do quick laps consistently.
However yes, I was wrong about one thing, I did think Schumacher would manage to close this deficit in time and sooner, it has taken longer than I expected, but as we have seen he has the immense talent to improve, adapt, and bridge even this gap at 42, he is performing better this year than in 2010 -the improvement is there for all to see. As Luca di said after Montreal, it has taken longer, but it has happened to a degree.
So yeah -I don't know what your point is other than to post out of spite. Which brings me to the next thing...
For someone who tells other people they are making assumptions, you speak a lot of shit. Read your points again, and then count how many assumptions you make in them. "would have", "would not have", "had they not believed", "would also", "similar". All assumptions that lead to conclusions which are not known for sure.
If you think I'm a troll then by all means report me and let the moderator decide. I was genuinely trying to discuss this, but I could not see what you were trying to argue. You may see both the logic and relevancy of your argument, but I can not. You obviously see a strong connection between Mika's one day on track and Michael's age, I do not. Apparently Mika's one off test day answers how much speed Schumacher has lost in ten years (with out making any assumptions mind you), I don't see how. If that makes me a troll, again I say, so be it. If you think you have a case, hit the report button. If you want a forum where everyone sees everything the same way you do, hit the ignore button. Alternatively we can forget this exchange and look forward to the next race. Up to you.
.........I see. These are Hakkinen's own words after the test:
“Although it was great fun today I also had to do some serious work for the team, as any feedback I could give them from today's experience will help them with their preparations for the 2007 season.
“As a result I was really pushing to try and do the best job that I could to assist them in any way possible.”
“I spent the morning really acclimatising to the environment of the cockpit again and just getting to grips with driving a 2006 car, I didn't expect to be quick straight away, and Barcelona is of course a hard track on both the car and driver,” he said.
“It took several laps before I was up to speed, but we were all expecting this to be the case.
“We have done some good work today and got some great results and I am really grateful to the team for this opportunity and the mechanics for working so hard for me."
"Maybe with the fuel level down to a minimum, maybe then we could get down to a good lap time," he said.
"The plan was to run the same fuel level all the time, which are high enough to work on the race configuration.
"Maybe if we had a new set of tyres then maybe the lap time could have been 1.2 to two seconds faster. That (lap times) was not the issue."
There is enough in there for anybody but someone blind or stupidly obstinate to admit Hakkinen just lacked pace, no matter what the case. His early laps had been much slower than his later laps, that should tell you he got up to speed like any other driver would. He did push and he did set representative lap times, otherwise he would not have said the bits I've highlighted. He even goes on to say the maximum
he could have done was a lap 1.2 seconds to two seconds quicker, which would still leave him over a second off the pace. Schumacher was not this slow when he similarly jumped into the Ferrari for testing, compared to the same Badoer. The difference is that MS was only a year into retirement while MH was five, that's what caused such a wide gulf, is my point.
Considering this it isn't at all unreasonable to think Schumacher would have lost just as much pace as Hakkinen himself did, which was perhaps in the area of a second at least. As you are not capable of making this simple connection or admit it may have been possible, I see no way of convincing someone so foolishly adamant, and there's no point to continuing this discussion. Ignore button it is. Not for the trolling but for the weird feeling I get that I'm basically replying to the same poster twice.