Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#14651 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 16 October 2011 - 13:10

There is no specific hate towards Petrov, but considering that he is not rookie yet the way he drives, questions is, whether he should be actually in F1 at all.

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


Advertisement

#14652 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:10

MS was faster in FP3 on the long run with SS than Nico.
http://www.fia.com/e...sion3-times.pdf


You're making yourself look rather silly with all this, Rosberg was signifigantly faster on every racing lap before MS's accident, claiming Schumacher 'had the pace' to beat him is nonsensical. The balance will be different every race, sometimes Nico's faster sometimes Michael, your desperation to denigrate everything Rosberg does just makes you look like you're bashing the guy.

#14653 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:14

Yes, starting 7th and finishing 8th is amazing. With 2 more DNF's Michael is only 7 points behind and has better results.


You realise the cars ahead of Rosberg were all faster, (2 Red Bulls, McLarens and Ferraris) and were driven by 2 double world champs, 2 single world champs and 2 multiple race winning title contenders? how was he supposed to beat that? He was on for best of the rest until he ran out of fuel and that's all you can ask.


#14654 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:15

Petrov has done enough sniffing of Schumacher; check history. It might not been always his fault, but he has to get of his fat a** and start thinking like a F1 racer, not GP2 kamikaze torpedo before he gets too close to someone. He doesn't has in him to drive in proximity of 10 cm of anyone, and I doubt that he ever will.


Michael admitted himself that they've collided 3 times this year and 2 of those were his own fault, quit pushing the blame where it doesn't belong.

#14655 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:22

You realise the cars ahead of Rosberg were all faster, (2 Red Bulls, McLarens and Ferraris) and were driven by 2 double world champs, 2 single world champs and 2 multiple race winning title contenders? how was he supposed to beat that? He was on for best of the rest until he ran out of fuel and that's all you can ask.

multiple nothing winner jaime over raced him and that shouldn't have happened.

he had a sh!tty 2nd stint, really really bad (short and distroyed the tyres)

he ran out of fuel? I said before that it means 2 things
1) he used more power than the race (hmm. no results in pace if he ended up fighting jaime)
2) he ran a lighter car all race -> speed advantage

running out of fuel isn't a valid excuse, he was on destroyed tyres because his 2nd stint was awful.

#14656 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:37

multiple nothing winner jaime over raced him and that shouldn't have happened.

he had a sh!tty 2nd stint, really really bad (short and distroyed the tyres)

he ran out of fuel? I said before that it means 2 things
1) he used more power than the race (hmm. no results in pace if he ended up fighting jaime)
2) he ran a lighter car all race -> speed advantage

running out of fuel isn't a valid excuse, he was on destroyed tyres because his 2nd stint was awful.


Not having fuel in your car is no excuse for not winning!

Jesus.

He lost five and a half seconds on his last lap, Alegesuari did a great job but Rosberg was hamstrung.

His second stint racing laps were within a tenth of Massa's and faster for a couple of laps, nothing wrong there, he just locked up and flat spotted them, which isn't a shitty stint, it's a decent stint cut short by a mistake.

Fuel consumption is the teams responsibility, not the drivers, the team should have had him conserving more.

#14657 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:39

You're making yourself look rather silly with all this, Rosberg was signifigantly faster on every racing lap before MS's accident, claiming Schumacher 'had the pace' to beat him is nonsensical. The balance will be different every race, sometimes Nico's faster sometimes Michael, your desperation to denigrate everything Rosberg does just makes you look like you're bashing the guy.

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.

Edited by ivand911, 16 October 2011 - 14:52.


#14658 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 16 October 2011 - 14:41

You realise the cars ahead of Rosberg were all faster, (2 Red Bulls, McLarens and Ferraris) and were driven by 2 double world champs, 2 single world champs and 2 multiple race winning title contenders? how was he supposed to beat that? He was on for best of the rest until he ran out of fuel and that's all you can ask.


He lost 7th due to his mistake alone. Maybe even Massa would have been today out of reach but he should have challenged him.

Anyway, that's offtopic.

Edited by Diablobb81, 16 October 2011 - 14:42.


#14659 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,535 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 16 October 2011 - 15:04

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.


Arguing that MS was clearly going to beat his team mate when he outpaced every single lap of the race is just silly, we can play semantics all you like but there was no evidence whatsoever that he would have taken Rosberg.

Rosberg lost 5.5 seconds in one lap at the end, no visible mistake that I saw and parked the car by the side of the track. You think he was overtaken fair and square at the end? if so, there's no point continuing here.


Advertisement

#14660 Myrvold

Myrvold
  • Member

  • 2,877 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 15:11

you realise they went some years refusing to speak to each other right?


If I remember correctly that was Schumacher refusing to speak to Brundle, because Brundle critized him in commentary.

#14661 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 15:24

Arguing that MS was clearly going to beat his team mate when he outpaced every single lap of the race is just silly, we can play semantics all you like but there was no evidence whatsoever that he would have taken Rosberg.

Rosberg lost 5.5 seconds in one lap at the end, no visible mistake that I saw and parked the car by the side of the track. You think he was overtaken fair and square at the end? if so, there's no point continuing here.

You mean for 13 laps, not race? We didn't see MS on S tyres at all to make any predictions. Evidence, let me think, Jaime beat Nico, MS was ahead of Jaime before Petrov hit him. So there is big probability MS could finish ahead of Nico as Jaime did. His second and third stint was not good at all. Jaime spend 17 laps behind Nico and was faster than him. Alonso also stop after he finish ,any thoughts about that too? With DRS there isn't fair and square anymore.
http://en.mclarenf-1.....=Nico Rosberg

Edited by ivand911, 16 October 2011 - 15:27.


#14662 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 16:42

DC has been particuluarly special this weekend. Yesterday he said the vibrations on Michaels car were definately due to Michael locking up on the out lap - not true - he then called Michael a 'zero' after quali, today said Michael has some of the slowest reactions of any driver on the grid


DC is right on that, though. BEcause of his age, Schumacher have the least reactions of all. That how biology is, after 30 you start losing reaction speed and there is nothing to do about it, it's biological. Schumi good starts are due to his race craft and good clutch adjust for the start. You can clearly see that all old drivers lost speed: Trulli, Barrichello and even more Schumi because he is the older.

Sure. And without qualifying problem Nico would have easily won the race in Suzuka...

Nico would have been beaten in Suzuka's qualifying. He will only beat Schumi now when Mercedes screw Schumi, which might happen very often, though.

So he's slow in qualifying, slow in the first stint, and crashes a lot.

Seems like Nico's way of spending his tyres and fuel and only being a bit crap in the end of races works better.

You are certainly making big effort to troll this thread.

Arguing that MS was clearly going to beat his team mate when he outpaced every single lap of the race is just silly, we can play semantics all you like but there was no evidence whatsoever that he would have taken Rosberg.

Rosberg lost 5.5 seconds in one lap at the end, no visible mistake that I saw and parked the car by the side of the track. You think he was overtaken fair and square at the end? if so, there's no point continuing here.

Nico was faster in the begining because he had less fuel and because he setup the car for the early laps. In first stint, he was keeping with the Ferraris and Button. THen they all vanished in front of him and a STR overtook Nico. Schumacher always have better setup for later in the race and I think it's very likely that he would finish ahead of Alguersuari and therefore, Nico.

#14663 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 16 October 2011 - 16:55

Michael admitted himself that they've collided 3 times this year and 2 of those were his own fault, quit pushing the blame where it doesn't belong.


Well, Michael is mellowing up; he calls just about everything his fault these days. Petrov rammed into him today, and Michel said it was a racing accident. I bet if Michael said it was his fault, you would accept that, don't you? Now having said that, it doesn't changes my opinion that Petrov doesn't belong to F1.

#14664 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 October 2011 - 17:07

Schumacher have the least reactions of all. That how biology is, Trulli, Barrichello and even more Schumi because he is the older.


That's only true in relation to MS himself, we have no idea until directly compared to the other drivers although it is probable that a few of the younger guys might have faster reaction times.

Anyway, good start from him, kept calm at turn one and got through.

I don't blame Petrov, I blame Benz, I mean why are MS and Rosberg playing down the grid in the first place although I must say Petrov's little moment was very Formula Ford'ish and probably doesn't belong in F1.


#14665 weston

weston
  • Member

  • 371 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 October 2011 - 17:29

In Korea Schumacher was on the way to have another solid result and fight with Massa and Alonso for P5 - P7. Unfortunately Petrov took him out this time. In 2011 standards it was a boring race. Rosberg disappeared in the second stint as usual. As pattern shows only one more "racing accident" is waiting for Schumacher in this season. Liuzzi or Alguersuari is due to meet his car in Abu Dhabi. India should be a good race though.

Edited by weston, 16 October 2011 - 17:53.


#14666 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 17:36

There is no specific hate towards Petrov, but considering that he is not rookie yet the way he drives, questions is, whether he should be actually in F1 at all.


They kicked Ide out for driving the same way.

#14667 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,744 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 16 October 2011 - 17:53

DC is right on that, though. BEcause of his age, Schumacher have the least reactions of all. That how biology is, after 30 you start losing reaction speed and there is nothing to do about it, it's biological.


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

Although the pilots described here were relatively young (mean age =
30.2 years), and their age range was only 20 years, pilot age was still
found to be related to numerous vision measures (Table IV). Older pilots
hzd higher thresholds (poorer vision) than younger pilots for all vision
tests, and the correlation between age and threshold was significant in
three tests (spot detection ability, high contrast acuity, low contrast
acuity with glare). A reduction in acuity with increased age is well known
for the general population (e.g., Allen and Vos, 1967). The relationships
between reaction time variables and age are less clear. The simple reaction
time for the supra threshold spot target got significantly longer with
age increased which is a well documented result (Welford, 1980). it
is unclear, however, why the threshold stressed reaction times for several
tests became significantly sborter with increased age
for these pilots.

http://www.dtic.mil/...oc=GetTRDoc.pdf

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.



#14668 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 October 2011 - 18:08

In Korea Schumacher was on the way to have another solid result and fight with Massa and Alonso for P5 - P7.


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.


#14669 fieraku

fieraku
  • Member

  • 5,304 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 16 October 2011 - 18:08

DC is right on that, though. BEcause of his age, Schumacher have the least reactions of all. That how biology is, after 30 you start losing reaction speed and there is nothing to do about it, it's biological.


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


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

#14670 exmayol

exmayol
  • Member

  • 554 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 ;)


#14671 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 ..


#14672 weston

weston
  • Member

  • 371 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.

#14673 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

#14674 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?

#14675 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.

#14676 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.


#14677 7MGTEsup

7MGTEsup
  • Member

  • 388 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.


#14678 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.

#14679 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 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

Advertisement

#14680 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,744 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.


#14681 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,744 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.


#14682 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.


#14683 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,744 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.


#14684 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,190 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.

#14685 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,714 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:

#14686 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 16 October 2011 - 21:40

I thought that Petrov is a pay-driver.

who was better than heidfeld

#14687 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.

#14688 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.

#14689 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,190 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.

#14690 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

#14691 Lelouch

Lelouch
  • Member

  • 609 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.

#14692 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 3,880 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

#14693 PoliFanAthic

PoliFanAthic
  • Member

  • 642 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

#14694 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.


#14695 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.


#14696 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 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.

#14697 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,720 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.

#14698 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 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.

#14699 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

Advertisement

#14700 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.