Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#14651 exmayol

exmayol
  • Member

  • 556 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 18:11

Meh... robbed of a 7th place probably. Not a big deal. For every bad race there will be agood one ;)


Advertisement

#14652 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 October 2011 - 18:13

It is not necessarily so. You will find this interesting, it is an excerpt from a study on fighter pilots, older pilots were 44:


I average around 0.18 to 0.2 on this test and I have a few years up on 44....

http://www.mathsisfu...ction-time.html

Maybe relevant to this thread some might note their time and nominate their aproximate age ..


#14653 weston

weston
  • Member

  • 375 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:37

Would you PM me next week's Lotto numbers please, I would give thanks in advance but you of course you already knew that as well.


Lottery is much more diverse regarding the probabilities or the favorable odds. Probability starts with logic and demands a branch of mathematics an angry fan may lack of.

#14654 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:41

I average around 0.18 to 0.2 on this test and I have a few years up on 44....

http://www.mathsisfu...ction-time.html

Maybe relevant to this thread some might note their time and nominate their aproximate age ..

0.222 at 30 but its easy to react when theres only one thing to concentrate on

#14655 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:42

If his reactions a slower how would you explain the excellent starts?

#14656 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:45

If his reactions a slower how would you explain the excellent starts?

There's more to starts than reactions, and from what I've read MS never had uber reactions to start with.

#14657 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:46

I've never really bought the theory on Schumacher's slow reaction times. Howcome his car control was and still is SUBLIME?

Edited by dav115, 16 October 2011 - 19:46.


#14658 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 416 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:49

I average around 0.18 to 0.2 on this test and I have a few years up on 44....

http://www.mathsisfu...ction-time.html

Maybe relevant to this thread some might note their time and nominate their aproximate age ..


I average around 0.28 but I have had 2 glasses of wine and am pretty chilled lol I'm 33.


#14659 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:50

I've never really bought the theory on Schumacher's slow reaction times. Howcome his car control was and still is SUBLIME?

It's about feel as much as reaction. I'm sure they're not 'slow', but I've both read and seen on a documentary that they're not uber quick.

Advertisement

#14660 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:16

average 0.26 with the best around 0.17...but I've had 3 beers :)

however, as someone pointed out, reaction time when waiting for something to happen and reaction time when you do a lot of other stuff are 2 different things.

but why are we talking about this? it's not like he could have avoided petrov today

#14661 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,958 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:24

average 0.26 with the best around 0.17...but I've had 3 beers :)

however, as someone pointed out, reaction time when waiting for something to happen and reaction time when you do a lot of other stuff are 2 different things.

but why are we talking about this? it's not like he could have avoided petrov today


GIGALOL. It's still weekend, huh? Seems everybody is consuming. I had my share too, so I did not even dare try it yet.


#14662 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,958 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:45

191. Lot of beers+some whiskey :) 43
edit, 0,191

Edited by Szoelloe, 16 October 2011 - 20:46.


#14663 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:12

how does he drive?! rather fast and pushed heidfeld out of f1 if you want an honest opinion.
should we kick alonso also out? they both made a similar mistake



I thought that Petrov is a pay-driver.

Edited by Sakae, 16 October 2011 - 21:13.


#14664 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,958 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:21

I thought that Petrov is a pay-driver.


He is. I don't like the guy. I mean really not. But MS was a pay-driver too. Some others from the successful pack also. In the end, only success or the lack of it defines a driver, no matter how he got into the game.


#14665 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:25

Petrov obviously has speed, look how many times he has made it into Q3 this year and he was strong at the beginning of the year with a podium on merit in Australia.

However, complacency, the arrival of Senna and some brain-fade means his star has lost its lustre.

#14666 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 18,466 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:29

Have to say there was one thing I very much apreciated today about MS: when interviewed mid-race by the BBC he said about his 3 or so coming togethers with Petrovs in 2011 (paraphrased) "That's racing, two times it was my fault, today it was his".

:up:

#14667 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:40

I thought that Petrov is a pay-driver.

who was better than heidfeld

#14668 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:47

As you also mention, this basically means that experience compensates reaction time loss. Mind you, I am not saying here that MS has faster reaction times than ever, but I think that although his reaction times may be slower, it does not necessarily affect his natural speed.

:clap:
fantastic post ;)
Later I'll make a thread on how I think he can't drive on the edge anymore.

Tell that to this guy,and he's 117 ;)


There's no indication WHATSOEVER that Schu's problems are due to your "theory".

THis video have nothing to do with reaction times. :confused:

I average around 0.18 to 0.2 on this test and I have a few years up on 44....

http://www.mathsisfu...ction-time.html

Maybe relevant to this thread some might note their time and nominate their aproximate age ..

I'm 27 and I have taken no alcooholic drink eventhough I didn't have a proper sleep and feel a little dizzy:
http://img571.images...eactiontime.jpg
http://img830.images...actiontime2.jpg
http://img207.images...actiontime4.jpg
http://img560.images...actiontime3.jpg

If his reactions a slower how would you explain the excellent starts?

racecraft, not jumping faster than the others.

#14669 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 16 October 2011 - 22:17

I am bashing Nico in MS thread? Most of first stint MS was behind Petrov on very close pace. Up to lap 5th MS was behind DIR driving with his speed. Nico was behind much faster McLaren and he start to catch three guys ahead of him when Massa tyres were gone. Not that Ferrari was slower than him, just Massa was for some reason(probably tyres). Petrov and MS also start to catch the guys ahead.
Can you describe what significantly faster mean? Just go to Japan lap times to see this significantly faster pace of MS. 2 sec is significantly fast. MS was slower than Nico maximum one second when driving behind and overtaking DIR. After that he is only 0,5 sec slower in the slowest lap, normally around 0,2-0,3sec. Yeah, very significant.
http://www.fia.com/e...ace-history.pdf
Check this before saying funny things. Faster than Massa in second stint??? He just slow down Massa and Alonso behind him. Massa improve from 1:44 to 1:42.7 after Nico pit.
Team and Nico never mentioned fuel problem after the race. With SC would be strange. Maybe he just burn more that he need to. If there was fuel problem, mind you.

The usual desperate defence Ivan. MS's fans wonder why there is so much hate towards Michael, in many cases it' not hate so much as people setting the record straight. This weekend MS was outperformed by his teammate, you can spin it how you like but that's the facts unquestionably. I didn't see anything for fans of Nico or Michael to leap for joy about to be honest, it was another disappointing afternoon and Nico continues to qualify an average car well up the grid, Michael is probably doing a better than average to average job with the same average car. Michael sometimes gets the strategy and tyre use/conservation working bette, othertimes not. Let's get this whole thing in some perspective, I can't see any reason for me to be wowed by either of them recently.

#14670 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 16 October 2011 - 22:23

How many non-points finishes (inc DNF's) has Schumacher had this season now?

Australia, Turkey, Monaco, Valencia, Hunary, Singapore and now Korea.

7/16 races so far.

#14671 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 23:26

The usual desperate defence Ivan. MS's fans wonder why there is so much hate towards Michael, in many cases it' not hate so much as people setting the record straight. This weekend MS was outperformed by his teammate, you can spin it how you like but that's the facts unquestionably. I didn't see anything for fans of Nico or Michael to leap for joy about to be honest, it was another disappointing afternoon and Nico continues to qualify an average car well up the grid, Michael is probably doing a better than average to average job with the same average car. Michael sometimes gets the strategy and tyre use/conservation working bette, othertimes not. Let's get this whole thing in some perspective, I can't see any reason for me to be wowed by either of them recently.

It's not the facts, it's a supposition.

We will never know if he would outperform Schumacher. Plus, this qualifying as a one-off. Schumacher was confortably 7th fastest car on Suzuka and Singapore

#14672 Lelouch

Lelouch
  • Member

  • 610 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 23:45

How many non-points finishes (inc DNF's) has Schumacher had this season now?

Australia, Turkey, Monaco, Valencia, Hunary, Singapore and now Korea.

7/16 races so far.


Yes i also mentioned this last week it's kinda pathetic actually.. It's a strange season for Michael but he has proven that he has the pace now. I have to admit that i don't wanna see him behind Rosberg in the final standing though. The real disappointment for me is that if the car was close to the top 3 we could have seen 1-2 podiums from Michael which would make 2011 a great season for me.

#14673 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,962 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 17 October 2011 - 01:30

don't want to rain on coulthards continued besmirching of schumacher but...

scientific fact that no one has faster reactions than anyone else, racing drivers included. nice myth, nice theory but factually wrong. their nervous system acts no faster than your or mine

the diference though is in what the physical action and subsequent actions taken in response are. ie a racing driver anticipates the events that are yet to occur, often through experience rather than innate ability or sixth sense

#14674 PoliFanAthic

PoliFanAthic
  • Member

  • 647 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 17 October 2011 - 05:43

Some nice pictures of the crash on this facebook fan page:

http://www.facebook....188194354538259

#14675 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 07:02

The usual desperate defence Ivan. MS's fans wonder why there is so much hate towards Michael, in many cases it' not hate so much as people setting the record straight. This weekend MS was outperformed by his teammate, you can spin it how you like but that's the facts unquestionably. I didn't see anything for fans of Nico or Michael to leap for joy about to be honest, it was another disappointing afternoon and Nico continues to qualify an average car well up the grid, Michael is probably doing a better than average to average job with the same average car. Michael sometimes gets the strategy and tyre use/conservation working bette, othertimes not. Let's get this whole thing in some perspective, I can't see any reason for me to be wowed by either of them recently.

Muz we have forgotten you! I very much like when MS haters talk about yesterday race like he finish it. No , he didn't finish. So, there is nothing to discuss really. He started 12, was 10th after first lap. He was one(Massa) position behind Nico when he was hit. He have slower first stint , and he was 7 sec behind Nico when he was hit. 7sec are not huge distance, so he would probably catch Nico together with Alonso. We didn't see MS on S tyres at all, I guess this was his strength. But, Petov happen.

Edited by ivand911, 17 October 2011 - 07:04.


#14676 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 08:03

By now I can tell you're one of those people that believes Ferrari had the better car in 2006 and no amount of reasoning is going to change that, all I can suggest is you go back and rewatch the season. Watch every practice, qualifying and race session, take note of Ferrari's issues with the tyres and inconsistency, pay attention to the post-race briefings, etc, instead of hunting up statistics over the internet. Like any other season both had their ups and downs and were better suited at some tracks rather than others, pretty naive to suggest otherwise. I'm not going to waste more time discussing 2006 with someone that thinks Ferrari had the better car that year. :wave:


Please prove where I've said Ferrari had the better car in 2006 ? It was you who claimed Renault had the 'best package by far', and when you're shown the facts

1. You're going into irrelevant details about how Fisichella was supposedly far inferior to Massa (impossible to prove anyway) because of some fairytale story about grooves and tyres.

2. About Renault's 'clear' advantage in Hungary and France while ignoring the superior pace advantage Ferrari enjoyed at many tracks of the year.

3. Completely ignoring the race ending mistakes both Schumacher and Massa made in comparison to the Renaults

I dont need to rewatch every practice, qualifying and race issues, neither do I need to hunt up statistics over the internet to prove you wrong. 'Renault had far and away the best package in 2006' is a myth propogated by Schumacher fans who cannot accept that their idol is human and capable of defeat. You can continue to live in your mythical universe where Schumacher can never be beaten by anyone and make up excuses for him which even the man himself will find funny.

Alonso was the better driver in 2006. Wont make you a lesser man if you admitted it. And a wave to you too :wave:

Edited by SparkPlug, 17 October 2011 - 08:03.


#14677 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 October 2011 - 09:06

Please prove where I've said Ferrari had the better car in 2006 ? It was you who claimed Renault had the 'best package by far', and when you're shown the facts


Umm...

From this we can actually conclude that the Ferrari was marginally better


Which it wasn't. Still, as I said I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were 'evenly' matched.

1. You're going into irrelevant details about how Fisichella was supposedly far inferior to Massa (impossible to prove anyway) because of some fairytale story about grooves and tyres.


How is it irrelevant when you attempted to use Massa's performances as 'proof' that Ferrari had the better car? I'm simply pointing out he did a better job. Grooves and tyre widths are not fairytale stories, appalling that someone that posts on an F1 forum would deny the central role driving style, tyre characteristics, etc play in determining form and performance.

2. About Renault's 'clear' advantage in Hungary and France while ignoring the superior pace advantage Ferrari enjoyed at many tracks of the year.


I've never denied Ferrari did not enjoy an advantage at certain tracks, that's the very point I was making: that car + tyre form was, like an other F1 season, dependent upon track characteristics as well. Which is why dividing the season into two halves is ridiculous, because as you have now admitted Renault did have an advantage at some races in the second part of the season as well. On balance, the R26 was the better car.

3. Completely ignoring the race ending mistakes both Schumacher and Massa made in comparison to the Renaults


As I said, always easier to be consistent when you have the better, quicker, and more balanced package. Cue Button in 2009. Easier to cruise and collect (hoard, rather) with a car that has an unfair advantage than to push to overcome a pace deficit.

I dont need to rewatch every practice, qualifying and race issues, neither do I need to hunt up statistics over the internet to prove you wrong. 'Renault had far and away the best package in 2006' is a myth propogated by Schumacher fans who cannot accept that their idol is human and capable of defeat. You can continue to live in your mythical universe where Schumacher can never be beaten by anyone and make up excuses for him which even the man himself will find funny.


So basically you refuse to rewatch the season or pay attention to the facts and developments as they unfolded, instead choosing to believe in a revisionist theory that you think is true. Probably because you're worried it'd prove you wrong and expose the season for what it really was: a lop sided season for the most part where one car had a big, unfair advantage and no issues, had momentum from the successful 2005 campaign in their favour while their closest challengers had to play catch up from the get-go, not to mention issues with the tyres, track characteristics, regs, ups and downs throughout the season, etc.

Alonso was the better driver in 2006. Wont make you a lesser man if you admitted it. And a wave to you too :wave:


There's no need to 'admit' something that isn't true, but Renault certainly had the better car in 2006. There's plenty of annoying revisionists on the internet, I'm afraid I'll have to class this one into the same category. I've no interest arguing with a revisionist nor am I going to reason with you as you've made your mind up already, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Good luck.

#14678 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,813 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 17 October 2011 - 09:11

Having been at the 2006 French GP where Michael absolutely desimated the field...I cannot admit that Alonso was better. They were both spectacular that year.

#14679 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 October 2011 - 09:19

Having been at the 2006 French GP where Michael absolutely desimated the field...I cannot admit that Alonso was better. They were both spectacular that year.


Pretty much.

Advertisement

#14680 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 09:44

There's no need to 'admit' something that isn't true, but Renault certainly had the better car in 2006. There's plenty of annoying revisionists on the internet,

better man had the better car facts are facts

#14681 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:04

Umm...


Which it wasn't. Still, as I said I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were 'evenly' matched.

Intentionally quoting half a sentence to prove your point is really, naive, and a poor debate ploy. Let me repost that for you :

From this we can actually conclude that the Ferrari was marginally better, however their qualifying issues in 2 races would mean its reasonable to peg the two teams as equal.

I see you're now resorting to petty tactics to score a point here and there instead of really debating. :up:

How is it irrelevant when you attempted to use Massa's performances as 'proof' that Ferrari had the better car? I'm simply pointing out he did a better job.

I did not use Massa's performances as proof that Ferrari had the better car. I used both drivers from both teams to illustrate my point.


Grooves and tyre widths are not fairytale stories, appalling that someone that posts on an F1 forum would deny the central role driving style, tyre characteristics, etc play in determining form and performance.

Since you're so confident about grooves and tyre widths making Massa a super quick driver while while at the same time bringing Giancarlo Fisichella to the level of a mediocre also ran, you surely must have some sort of proof ?

I've never denied Ferrari did not enjoy an advantage at certain tracks, that's the very point I was making: that car + tyre form was, like an other F1 season, dependent upon track characteristics as well. Which is why dividing the season into two halves is ridiculous, because as you have now admitted Renault did have an advantage at some races in the second part of the season as well. On balance, the R26 was the better car.


Renault had a tyre advantage at Hungary, negated by the fact that the championship contender Alonso suffered a mechanical failure.
They also had an advantage for about half of the Chinese Grand Prix when the conditions were wet. Which makes it 0.5/9 races in which Renault actually had the clear best car in the second half of the season.

Meanwhile, Ferrari took 7 wins in the second half of the season after their upgrade and Renault's loss of the Mass dampner.

Are you implying that a car that won 7 of the last 9 races was not the best car of the second half of the season ?

As I said, always easier to be consistent when you have the better, quicker, and more balanced package. Cue Button in 2009. Easier to cruise and collect (hoard, rather) with a car that has an unfair advantage than to push to overcome a pace deficit.

Do you have any evidence of this so called consistent pace deficit you keep bringing up ? Or do you just like making stuff up all the time ?

The Mass Dampner issue really requires a thread of its own, no point bringing that up here but the Renault did not have an illegal system, atleast not until it was proved so.

So basically you refuse to rewatch the season or pay attention to the facts and developments as they unfolded, instead choosing to believe in a revisionist theory that you think is true. Probably because you're worried it'd prove you wrong and expose the season for what it really was: a lop sided season for the most part where one car had a big, unfair advantage and no issues, had momentum from the successful 2005 campaign in their favour while their closest challengers had to play catch up from the get-go, not to mention issues with the tyres, track characteristics, regs, ups and downs throughout the season, etc.

No, 'basically' I dont need to rewatch anything nor am I worried about anything being proved wrong since you really havent proved anything at all. Its a 'revisionist' theory, maybe in the Michael Schumacher thread. But in the real world the Ferrari was at the very least a match for the Renault.


There's no need to 'admit' something that isn't true, but Renault certainly had the better car in 2006. There's plenty of annoying revisionists on the internet, I'm afraid I'll have to class this one into the same category. I've no interest arguing with a revisionist nor am I going to reason with you as you've made your mind up already, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Good luck.

Repeating something over and over again doesnt make it true, even on the internet. The only theory thats actually revisionist is calling the Renault as the 'far and away' best package in 2006.

I see you still have no facts at all to back up any of your points. Lets go over them again :
1. Massa > Fisichella in 2006
2. Ferrari was not the clear best car in the second half of the season.
3. Renault had far and away the best package of 2006.

Edited by SparkPlug, 17 October 2011 - 10:10.


#14682 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:09

Having been at the 2006 French GP where Michael absolutely desimated the field...I cannot admit that Alonso was better. They were both spectacular that year.

'Having been' at any one grand prix does not prove anything. In that case Markus Winkelhock must be the greatest driver ever to those who attended the 2008 German GP.

#14683 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:11

'Having been' at any one grand prix does not prove anything. In that case Markus Winkelhock must be the greatest driver ever to those who attended the 2008 German GP.

having been in my living room with live timing open and an excel spreedsheet going over all of the variables i can only conclude alonso had the slower car but overcame the gap with his own talents

#14684 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:20

having been in my living room with live timing open and an excel spreedsheet going over all of the variables i can only conclude alonso had the slower car but overcame the gap with his own talents

I dont know if Renault had the slower car, but Alonso did make fewer mistakes than Schumacher inspite of both having competitive machinery at their disposal. Which is why he won.

For 2006, Alonso was clearly > Schumacher because of this alone (making lesser mistakes). The deserved champion. :up:

Edited by SparkPlug, 17 October 2011 - 10:21.


#14685 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:35

Intentionally quoting half a sentence to prove your point is really, naive, and a poor debate ploy. Let me repost that for you :
I see you're now resorting to petty tactics to score a point here and there instead of really debating. :up:


No really, I think you missed the part where I said I was okay with the opinion that the two cars ere evenly matced, even though I don't agree.

Since you're so confident about grooves and tyre widths making Massa a super quick driver while while at the same time bringing Giancarlo Fisichella to the level of a mediocre also ran, you surely must have some sort of proof ?


Where did I say Fisichella was a mediocre also ran? All I'm saying is that Massa did a better job in 2006, just as he did in 2007 and 2008, he was at home with grooves and wide fronts, and that his driving style was and still is similar to Schumacher's is something that has been brought up countless times in the past ever since Massa moved to Ferrari from Sauber. I have zero interest in trying to dig up old articles and interviews to appease a cheap revisionist.

Renault had a tyre advantage at Hungary, negated by the fact that the championship contender Alonso suffered a mechanical failure.
They also had an advantage for about half of the Chinese Grand Prix when the conditions were wet. Which makes it 0.5/9 races in which Renault actually had the clear best car in the second half of the season.

Meanwhile, Ferrari took 7 wins in the second half of the season after their upgrade and Renault's loss of the Mass dampner.

Are you implying that a car that won 7 of the last 9 races was not the best car of the second half of the season ?


Read my posts again. My problem is with people that keep dividing the season into two neat halves and claiming Ferrari had the better car throughout the second half, which is demonstrably false because Renault were quicker even on pace at Hungary and China, more consistent tyres at France, etc, all of which were in the second half.


Do you have any evidence of this so called consistent pace deficit you keep bringing up ? Or do you just like making stuff up all the time ?


Incredible. Now you're claiming Renault never had a pace advantage at any point in 2006? Watch the season for ****'s sake, please.

No, 'basically' I dont need to rewatch anything nor am I worried about anything being proved wrong since you really havent proved anything at all. Its a 'revisionist' theory, maybe in the Michael Schumacher thread. But in the real world the Ferrari was at the very least a match for the Renault.


Yes it is, it's definitely a revisionist theory and you know it. I've been saying all along that the season was far too complicated and that there were a lot of different factors involved, like any other season in the tyre war era or even later. To ignore tyre characteristics, track layouts, reg changes, etc and continue to claim Ferrari were better based on statistics alone is incredibly stupid. Are you seriously saying none of this had an effect in 2006 and that Ferrari were 'better in the second half' simply because they won more races?

Repeating something over and over again doesnt make it true, even on the internet. The only theory thats actually revisionist is calling the Renault as the 'far and away' best package in 2006.

I see you still have no facts at all to back up any of your points. Lets go over them again :
1. Massa > Fisichella in 2006
2. Ferrari was not the clear best car in the second half of the season.
3. Renault had far and away the best package of 2006.


1. See above.
2. See your own admission that Renault were better at Hungary and China. 'Clear' best car. :rolleyes:
3. They had an illegal, unfair advantage and cheated for 11 of the 18 races. Also called a majority. Of course Renault had the best package in 2006.

#14686 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:55

No really, I think you missed the part where I said I was okay with the opinion that the two cars ere evenly matced, even though I don't agree.



Where did I say Fisichella was a mediocre also ran? All I'm saying is that Massa did a better job in 2006, just as he did in 2007 and 2008, he was at home with grooves and wide fronts, and that his driving style was and still is similar to Schumacher's is something that has been brought up countless times in the past ever since Massa moved to Ferrari from Sauber. I have zero interest in trying to dig up old articles and interviews to appease a cheap revisionist.

Which means you dont have any proof of Massa > Fisichella. Not surprising.

Read my posts again. My problem is with people that keep dividing the season into two neat halves and claiming Ferrari had the better car throughout the second half, which is demonstrably false because Renault were quicker even on pace at Hungary and China, more consistent tyres at France, etc, all of which were in the second half.

Nothing of substance here again.

I just replied to all of this.
Hungary : Mechanical failure for Alonso
China : Clear advantage for Renault in the wet
France : More consistent tyres doesnt mean faster. Ferrari were the faster car at France.

On the other hand, Ferrari won 7 out the last 9 which is why they were the best car in the second half and were in the hunt for their 8th till an engine failure. What is your problem with that exactly ?

Incredible. Now you're claiming Renault never had a pace advantage at any point in 2006? Watch the season for ****'s sake, please.

I claimed no such thing. I asked you to prove your claim that Ferrari had a consistent pace deficit in 2006, apparently because of which the otherwise perfect superhumans Schumacher and Massa made mistakes.

Yes it is, it's definitely a revisionist theory and you know it. I've been saying all along that the season was far too complicated and that there were a lot of different factors involved, like any other season in the tyre war era or even later. To ignore tyre characteristics, track layouts, reg changes, etc and continue to claim Ferrari were better based on statistics alone is incredibly stupid. Are you seriously saying none of this had an effect in 2006 and that Ferrari were 'better in the second half' simply because they won more races?

If the season was far too complicated to analyze for you, how did you conclude Renault was 'far and away' the best package ?

1. See above.
2. See your own admission that Renault were better at Hungary and China. 'Clear' best car. :rolleyes:
3. They had an illegal, unfair advantage and cheated for 11 of the 18 races. Also called a majority. Of course Renault had the best package in 2006.

Next time maybe you should actually post something that makes sense.

#14687 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,820 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 17 October 2011 - 10:59

Having been at the 2006 French GP where Michael absolutely desimated the field...I cannot admit that Alonso was better. They were both spectacular that year.

I think in France it was that in qualy Alonso tried to get ahead of Michael exiting the pits and Michael attached and passed on track in the hairpin
I might be wrong but I think it was France


that fight was like for the race lead :)

#14688 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 12:26

Is it really necessary to enter an endless quarrel for things of the past, while IMHO the thread is more about MS today.
I suggest we accept that the better package of driver + car won back then and put it to rest.

Edited by sharo, 17 October 2011 - 12:27.


#14689 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 12:41

Is it really necessary to enter an endless quarrel for things of the past, while IMHO the thread is more about MS today.
I suggest we accept that the better package of driver + car won back then and put it to rest.

There is sufficient proof of Alonso being the better driver over the course of the 2006 season as he was more consistent and made lesser mistakes inspite of having faced more reliability related problems than his rival and also the added extra ridiculous penalty.

However there is hardly any proof of Renault being the superior car, and even less proof of it being 'far and away' the best package. That is just an excuse from some Schumacher fans, or a refusal to accept reality that someone can be better than Schumacher over the course of a season.


#14690 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 12:45

There is sufficient proof of Alonso being the better driver over the course of the 2006 season as he was more consistent and made lesser mistakes inspite of having faced more reliability related problems than his rival and also the added extra ridiculous penalty.

However there is hardly any proof of Renault being the superior car, and even less proof of it being 'far and away' the best package. That is just an excuse from some Schumacher fans, or a refusal to accept reality that someone can be better than Schumacher over the course of a season.

To put it this way 7:2. This is sufficient proof who is better. Ultimate proof. From 1991 to 2011. Why focus only on 2006? Maybe is better, Alonso to be compared to somebody like Vettel?

Edited by ivand911, 17 October 2011 - 12:49.


#14691 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:03

I dont know if Renault had the slower car, but Alonso did make fewer mistakes than Schumacher inspite of both having competitive machinery at their disposal. Which is why he won.

For 2006, Alonso was clearly > Schumacher because of this alone (making lesser mistakes). The deserved champion. :up:

Well, another circumstance is reliability. And I'm not calling for shots and the end for the race but for the start. Ferrari had massive temp issues on their engine and had to get around it, Malaysia. Melbourne was Schumachers own mistake but from that moment on he was already on his backfoot. In Spain Alonso was able to sprint away and Schumacher had to deal with Fisichella. I think Schumacher wanted Monaco to be a game changer and when he saw it didn't work out, he locked up. Literally. That made his season even worse and with the car not able to go for pole he had to come from 'the back', Alonso was only increasing his lead up to the USA. There Ferrari simply decimated anything between them and victory, in France Schumacher came out on top where Alonso only could hold off Massa due to strategy (like Schumacher @ Fisichella). Germany saw the mass damper being banned and Renault went nowhere. In Hungary Alonso was supreme in the wet conditions but slid off due to a teamwork mishap. Schumacher should have capitalized there but he didn't. In Turkey Schumacher overcooked it at Saturday, didn't get pole and in the end Alonso was ahead of him after unlucky circumstances. Note: Schumi cockup in the race where he slid off at T8. That gave Alonso P2.

Italy was controversial but Alonso failed anyway with his engine and in China he took the wrong decision to replace the worn fronts with new inters. That's plain his bad, just like Schumacher miscalled in Hungary. Japan was slightly for Schumacher when all the traffic was out of the way but his engine failed. Alonso went on and in Brazil Schumachers car has issues once again, Alonso even increased his lead and won the WDC.

Teamfailures or cockups which influenced outcome of a race badly:
Ferrari: 111 (Malaysia both cars, Suzuka, Brazil)
Renault: 11 (Hungary, Monza)

Driverfailures or cockups which influenced outcome of a race badly:
Schumacher: 111111 (Melbourne, Monaco, Turkey for going off, Hungary for being tricked by Alonso, for race-ending damage and potentially the decision to stay at inters)
Alonso: 11 (Hungary, impeding Doornbos AND setting up Schumacher) China, potentially the decision to switch to new front inters)

Remember the words Alonso used? I'll never let the gap become smaller than 25 points. But due to less agressive, more balanced driving he kept scoring pretty much everywhere. Schumachers pressure tactics in the end didn't pay off and a less all or nothing approach would have worked maybe, although Alonso was still very strong and hard to beat in 2006.

Edited by Jejking, 17 October 2011 - 13:20.


#14692 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:06

Which means you dont have any proof of Massa > Fisichella. Not surprising.


:|

It's well-known that Massa ha a driving style similar to that of Schumacher and prefers a car that has more grip at the front and is more pointy. 'Proof' of this (for the sake of a cheap revisionist, that is) is to be found with his remarks when Bridgestone shifted to narrower front tyres for 2010, offering less grip at the front and favouring drivers that liked their cars a bit more understeery:

From 2009 -

http://www.formula1....009/5/9414.html

“In addition to this, there is more mechanical grip - grip provided by the tyres interacting with the road surface - than before at the front of the car, due to the proportionally bigger contact patch of the front tyre, so the latest cars have a lot more grip on the front than previously.”

The additional grip at the front means that the latest cars work their rear tyres harder than before.

“We can certainly say that the current generation car has an oversteer tendency, where the rear of the car doesn’t have as much grip as the front, and this tendency is a focus for teams in their car set-ups and designs,” explains Hamashima.


On 2010 -

http://www.formula1....9/11/10216.html

Q: Next season there will be a smaller front tyre, tell us about this…
HH: For 2010 we will have a narrower front tyre. This will help to bring a better grip balance between the front and the rear grip of the cars. When we changed back to slick tyres the grooved tyre size was retained, meaning that the front gained proportionally more grip than the rear. This is addressed by making the front tyre narrower.


To link that with Massa's preferences:

http://www.totalf1.c..._driving_style/

http://www.ferrari.c...sa/default.aspx

"I hope we have a better time from now to the end of the season,” he continued. “Yes, there has been some bad luck and I believe in good and bad luck – what else would you call what happened to me at the final corner of the 2008 championship? But luck only plays a secondary part. In terms of my own difficulties on track, I have found it tough racing on the hard tyres, although much easier on the soft ones and I have tried to adapt my driving style accordingly.

"I prefer to drive a car with a lot of front grip, so even if I find a car with a lot of oversteer - but the front end is working properly - then I can work with the engineers to improve the rear end of the car. That is how I have always driven and this year’s narrow tyres have not helped my driving style.

Alonso and Massa have different chassis set-ups at times, but Massa believes the biggest difference is in their driving style. "It's not that the braking point is different, but when he is arriving to the corner he has a very aggressive style on the steering wheel. He always goes completely like this" – he indicates a sudden, jerking twist of the wheel as if throwing the car at the corner – "and by this he is warming up the tyres more. I've tried it, but I can't make it work."

Last year Bridgestone changed the front tyres a lot compared to 2009. This led to lots of understeer. The tyres were much harder and difficult to bring up to the right temperature. I tried to modify the front tyres, but then the rear tyres didn’t work as they should have, so it was a real fight. This year Pirelli should have prepared much stronger front tyres, for more grip. This is much better for my driving style.


http://www.f1technical.net/news/15875

http://www.independe...in-2039883.html



Going solely by the 'facts' dug up on the internet (as opposed to actually having watched the damned season and followed every move) it's plainly obvious pre-2010 cars had more grip at the front, favoured Massa's driving style, and therefore Massa was comfortable with the nature of the tyres in 2006. Not to mention Schumacher's own driving style (which I hope is beyond this ridiculous 'debate') meant he preferred a pointy car as well. Massa was thus comfortable with the F248, unlike with later cars and regs.

OTOH Fisichella and his teammate had different driving styles. All I can find now is this:

http://www.totalf1.c...s-i-fisichella/

Fisichella was therefore less comfortable with the R26 than Massa was with the F248, that I think is a reasonable conclusion.


I'd have thought things like this should go without saying and would have been obvious to someone that has followed the sport closely for a while but there you go.

Score 1 to the revisionists - 0 to common sense and knowledge, I'll give you that. Congrats on dragging someone that absolutely detests revisionists with their agendas to their level.

"Man landed on the moon in 69"
"Proof?"
"It was on the radio, TV, in the news, everywhere! Anybody that was alive back then would've known!"
"Proof? Link? Is it on Wikipedia or Youtube"

:rolleyes:

Nothing of substance here again.

I just replied to all of this.
Hungary : Mechanical failure for Alonso


Which doesn't negate the fact that Renault had an advantage at that track. Very cheap attempt.

France : More consistent tyres doesnt mean faster. Ferrari were the faster car at France.


But Renault + Michelin were the better package.

On the other hand, Ferrari won 7 out the last 9 which is why they were the best car in the second half and were in the hunt for their 8th till an engine failure. What is your problem with that exactly ?


I claimed no such thing. I asked you to prove your claim that Ferrari had a consistent pace deficit in 2006, apparently because of which the otherwise perfect superhumans Schumacher and Massa made mistakes.


Statistics, that's my problem. Any fool could hunt up stats and come to conclusions without fully understanding the way the season panned out or the ups and downs both teams had to face over the season. I could use stats too for instance:

http://www.f1technical.net/news/4406

One consequence is that a single chassis rarely completes a full season these days. In 2004 for example, Fernando Alonso used three chassis: R24-02, R24-06 and R24-07. That followed damage incurred during a Grand Prix weekend, and a new, revised lightweight monocoque design towards the end of the season.

In 2006, though, chassis R26-03 competed in every single Grand Prix weekend. It emerged from the race shop on 7 February 2006, 33 days before its victorious race debut in Bahrain on 12 March.

This test was to be the car’s only on-track action away from a Grand Prix weekend. It took a debut victory in Bahrain, and then scored 84 points from a possible 90 in the first half of the season – and completed every single race lap.

By season’s end in Brazil, the car had won a total of 134 points on the way to Fernando Alonso’s world drivers’ championship. It took 7 victories, 6 pole positions, set five fastest laps and helped Fernando to the podium on 14 occasions in total. Of the season’s 1137 total race laps, it completed 1108 – missing out on ten laps in Monza, and 19 in Hungary. That represents 97% of the total race laps completed.

What’s more, this car also led more laps than any other during the season – just as Fernando led more than any driver. It crossed the line in P1 on 463 laps, or 41% of the season total, on its way to seven victories during the 2006 season.

In total, including testing, practice, qualifying and racing, R26-03 completed 11,317km. It ran with 11 new engines in total: 10 during the season, and one in Barcelona.

So, 134 points, 7 race wins, 6 poles, 5 fastest laps and 1 world championship. To borrow a phrase, probably the most valuable Renault in the world…


From the horse's mouth (Renault F1). Clearly the best car of 2006, then...:rolleyes:

People that aren't fools, on the other hand, might say:

http://doctorvee.co....f-the-tyre-war/

Here is an extract from an article by Paul Kimmage in The Sunday Times from a couple of months ago.

At a press conference the next afternoon at the [Istanbul] circuit, [Jenson Button] is joined on stage by fellow drivers David Coulthard, Kimi Raikkonen and Tiago Monteiro. A French journalist raises his hand and asks, “Question to you all: who will win the world championship? Schumacher or Alonso? The four give the same reply: the championship will basically be decided by the team with the best tyres. The journalist is annoyed. What? No names? No opinions? We've given our opinions,Button insists. "We can't see into the future. We don't know what's going to happen.

We meet an hour later and I pull him up on it again. What was all that corporate crap? Why couldn't you give the guy a straight answer: Alonso or Schumacher? As a journalist and a fan, I find that absolutely infuriating.

'Because it's the truth,” he says. “It will all come down to the tyres.

'The tyres,' I repeat, incredulous.

'The tyres, 100%,' he insists.


A view shared by a lot people at the time, including me. To completely ignore this aspect and harp on and on about a clear cut 50:50 championship where Ferrari had the best car throughout the second half is pretty amazing for someone posting on an internet forum.

Next time maybe you should actually post something that makes sense.


Can't help it if you cannot read.

Enough of this bullshit for ****'s sake.

Edited by BRK, 17 October 2011 - 13:07.


#14693 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:06

To put it this way 7:2. This is sufficient proof who is better. Ultimate proof. From 1991 to 2011. Why focus only on 2006? Maybe is better, Alonso to be compared to somebody like Vettel?

because were talking about who was better over the course of a season not who is better over the course of their career.

noone can argue schumacher hasnt enjoyed a career which include results and records other f1 champions can only dream off, one can argue however during 2006 alonso performed better

Edited by arknor, 17 October 2011 - 13:07.


#14694 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:18

THis video have nothing to do with reaction times. :confused:

I knew you'd be confused! The dude is 117 :wave: ! Using your after 30 theory he shouldn't have any reactions at all let alone perform martial arts.

What I want to get at is,with the right diet,exercise and lifestyle you can't stop father time but you can sure as heck slow it down.So for all we know or don't know MS could have the RT of a 25 year old.
So for you to claim with certainty that MS's vows are due to "reaction" times is total BS. Merc has been a POS all year long,ever thought about that?

#14695 Skanka

Skanka
  • Member

  • 95 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:22

There is sufficient proof of Alonso being the better driver over the course of the 2006 season as he was more consistent and made lesser mistakes inspite of having faced more reliability related problems than his rival and also the added extra ridiculous penalty.

However there is hardly any proof of Renault being the superior car, and even less proof of it being 'far and away' the best package. That is just an excuse from some Schumacher fans, or a refusal to accept reality that someone can be better than Schumacher over the course of a season.


I kinda agree. Alonso was on top form in 2005-06, made very few mistakes and was super-quick. Since then, even when he had a very competitive car at his disposal (in 2007 and in 2010) he hasn't been able to reach that level of superb consistency compared to those two winning seasons.

What you forget to say though is that, when Ferrari wasn't competitive, they were really struggling. In Malaysia and in Australia they were nowhere, Schumacher had to push like hell in Australia to give the car some sort of pace, unfortunately he made a mistake but that's what can happen when you're pushing to the very limits of the car, and up until that mistake it was a phenomenal drive in my view. Then you've got to remember the Bridgestones were miles off the pace compared to the Michelins in the rain, therefore he was more exposed during those races in Hungary and in China. Yet he was superb in these two races (a bit unlucky trying to take risks in Hungary).

When you compare that with Renault, the R26 has always been extremely consistent; Alonso always finished either 1st or 2nd apart from: USA (poor pace from Alonso), Germany (only race where the Renault not competitive due to the loss of mass dampener), Hungary (was leading), Italy (was 3rd). In my opinion Schumacher had to take more risks with a car that was, on a few occasions, not on the pace, and that, with a brain-fade (Monaco), and unluckiness (Japan) meant he lost out to a brilliant Alonso in the end.

Both drivers being pretty much on the same level on the whole that season.


#14696 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,813 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:22

I think in France it was that in qualy Alonso tried to get ahead of Michael exiting the pits and Michael attached and passed on track in the hairpin
I might be wrong but I think it was France


that fight was like for the race lead :)


Yes, it was absolutely fantastic to watch at the track (I was sitting just before the hairpin too).

#14697 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,555 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:25

Bla.

I think we can agree for a really big part on this one. Got any comments on my post above? :)

#14698 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:37

, one can argue however during 2006 alonso performed better


I'm not sure who that is in your avatar, could you give me a clue please .... ?

Edited by cheapracer, 17 October 2011 - 13:38.


#14699 Skanka

Skanka
  • Member

  • 95 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 17 October 2011 - 13:41

I think we can agree for a really big part on this one. Got any comments on my post above? :)


Yup, very good post and recollection on the events of that year. :)

Alonso drove as well as he did in 2005, and in both years he could capitalize with having a good margin in terms of points, that means he could drive very fast yet without risking everything, while behind him Michael was playing catch-up right from the beginning (like Kimi the year before) and therefore had to take more risks resulting in mistakes.

But all in all, even if Michael lost out in the end, it was a fantastic season and a fascinating battle between those two greats. :smoking:

Edited by Skanka, 17 October 2011 - 13:41.


Advertisement

#14700 Jomyboy

Jomyboy
  • Member

  • 179 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 17 October 2011 - 14:04

For me, Alonso's face after China said it all. Heck, if you looked at the entire Renault team you could easily guess what was in their mind. Schumacher was the better man, the better fighter, and the better winner. I mean just before the race the Renault guys were talking on the grid and saying "In this rain, Schumacher would be lucky to get even in the points against Michelin." They had the shock of their lives.

As Ron Dennis once said, "If the driver is not making mistakes, then he probably isnt driving that hard." Its so easy to ridicule Schumi saying he made a lot of mistakes and hence deserved to lose in 2006. He could have probably driven like how Rosberg is driving now - be calm and easy with the car and get as many points as you could with no risks, and you know what - he would probably have won the 2006 championship had he driven like Rosberg. But then would we, his fans, look at him with the same respect as we do today? Would we have ever witnessed a gold like China 2006?