Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#14751 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,473 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:10

What it looks like, if Alonso has to play such "Schumacher-2006-role" and make up ground in the championship standing was very visible in the season right after, when he never had a luxury points lead, instead facing a hard fight. And whoops here was the Alonso making quite a lot of mistakes in the races (e.g. Canada where he was more gras mower than racing driver). etc. pp.


Now that you say it, I remember that Alonso's subsequent uphill struggle against freshman Hamilton pretty much pulled the teeth of the notion of him being a 'Schu retirerer' just like Kimi's altogether lacklustre performances for Ferrari these years did it for the Finn. I have always mused about how swift and clear both, although undoubtedly champions in their right, have come to look vulnerable and limited after MS' retirement.


Advertisement

#14752 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:10

I think he meant China as a fine example of MS having achieved the more memorable wins in 2006. Which is how I too view the season: MS showing the better peak performances, FA the better consistency. This made FA a deserving champion, but so would have been MS with a bit more luck towards the season's finale.

:up:
This is a reasonable assumption to make, since Schumacher did drive beautifully at China, Imola and Brazil. He also made more mistakes than his opponent which is why he lost the title. Alonso was the better driver that year, and only the most blind fans will conjure up excuses such as Renault were 'by far the most superior package' which is why Alonso just had to cruise and collect points and win. That is the most ridiculous thing I've read on the forum for a while.

About peak performances though, IMO Alonso's performance at Hungary was definitely the drive of the year in my books. Although thats a matter of opinion so lets leave it at that.

:lol:
That's priceless. You clearly have time coming out of your ears, else you wouldn't spend hours camped in a forum thread of an F1 driver you dislike writing endess reams in a failed attempt to convince people he's crap.

:well:
I'd like to see you post one quote, or one line of mine, from anywhere in this thread or forum where I've mentioned Schumacher is 'crap' (or anything close). If you find even one post to that subject I'll leave this forum forever my friend.

Too bad I was proved wrong about your maturity and level headedness in my previous post.

Looks like stupidity is contagious among some of you.

Edited by SparkPlug, 18 October 2011 - 08:11.


#14753 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,473 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:18

:up:
This is a reasonable assumption to make, since Schumacher did drive beautifully at China, Imola and Brazil. He also made more mistakes than his opponent which is why he lost the title. Alonso was the better driver that year...


Well, you equate Alonso's higher consistency with him being "better" to which you are perfectly entitled to. Others equate Schumacher's more outstanding wins with him being "better" to which they are perfectly entitled to as well. So why not leave it at that, it is clearly a matter of applying different criteria, each of them just as legitimate.

Edited by holiday, 18 October 2011 - 08:19.


#14754 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:24

Well, you equate Alonso's higher consistency with him being "better" to which you are perfectly entitled to. Others equate Schumacher's more outstanding wins with him being "better" to which they are perfectly entitled to as well. So why not leave it at that, it is clearly a matter of applying different criteria, each of them just as legitimate.

Holiday,
The issue is wholly different.

The main point of debate here is some dreamy fans seem to think that the main reason why Alonso won the title in 2006 was because he had a dominating car which is completely untrue. Both Schumacher and Alonso had competitive machinery at their disposal and one came out tops because he had more points in the end which equates to better performance (since we're talking about the world championship which only regards points as the main criteria).

There is no debate here about which is the better approach to racing (Aggressive vs calculating).



#14755 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 October 2011 - 08:28

Well, you equate Alonso's higher consistency with him being "better" to which you are perfectly entitled to. Others equate Schumacher's more outstanding wins with him being "better" to which they are perfectly entitled to as well. So why not leave it at that, it is clearly a matter of applying different criteria, each of them just as legitimate.

And this, is entirely the point; there was very little in it that year between either drivers or cars. It's 'possible' to construct a case for both MS and FA, but neither will ever be very convincing, so why get sooooo caught up in it?

#14756 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 18 October 2011 - 09:58

Sigh, I really dont have time for your childish games of playing around with words. Lets go over the crux of the argument again :


Sigh indeed. You brought up stats to 'prove' Ferrari were better, I brought up stats from Renault themselves to 'prove' Renault had the better car, then you had to embarrassingly abandon your statistics in favour of subjective quotes from interviews taken out of context. I did the same with more quotes than you were able to dig up and rubbished your 'evidence', and now you dismiss it as as being word games. The only one being embarrassing and stupid here is you.


a ) Fisichella hasnt said he's not comfortable with his car.
b ) Massa hasnt said he was more comfortable in his car than Fisichella was in his.

You claimed Massa was more comfortable in his car than Fisichella was in his. Prove it and stop playing word games. If you dont have any proof of the same, stop.


I've provided enough material for anyone to have a look, including a poster that has done an analysis of the two drivers' driving styles. You're absolutely clueless on the matter so you refuse to accept anything that might point to Fisichella not being as comfortable with the R26 compared to his teammate (which I see you've omitted from point a). You've rejected a similar theory about Massa's driving style and how the Ferrari suited both his and Michael's styles well. Like I said you're just hell bent upon being stupidly adamant about a well-known issue and being an asshole about it.

All of these links that you've posted only re-inforce the fact that Renault wasnt the far and away best package as you earlier claimed. Each of the quotes you posted shows Renault consider Ferrari a serious threat to the title, and so does Ross Brawn and Ferrari for that matter. I've not eschewed any of my statistics, but the links and quotes are only in response to your rather childish move of posting quotes from Renault's official microphone which will only say positive things about their own team.

I'm yet to see a single piece of evidence which says Renault were 'far and away' the best package of 2006. As good an admission of defeat from you as any. Playing around with words for 2 days wont get you anywhere on that front.

On the other hand I showed you clear bit of evidence, the autosport technical review for the year which considers Ferrari the fastest car of the second half of the season along with it being an equal to Renault over the course of the season. I see you have no reponse to this either. :wave:


Read those two sentences again. My quotes were also from people working at Renault, hardly an unbiased, objective source of information, and yet they have never once said Ferrari had an advantage in the second half of the season at the time the interviews were taken. All they're saying is that it's down to the tyres, that the balance could change from track to track or overnight. What's more, they're also denying Ferrari had an advantage at Monza, for instance, and that Renault were most certainly NOT on the backfoot. Ties in perfectly with what I have been saying and brings your ludicrous claims crashing down.

But again, I'm fine if you think the cars were evenly matched. I don't agree and never will as I remember the season well and have enough basis to back up this opinion.

Repeating something over and over wont make it true, even though it may re-inforce the myth in your own simple mind.

You have not once provided any real evidence of this massive advantage. Quotes from Felipe Massa, Bridgestone or the Renault mouthpiece say nothing of the sort that you imply.


I've no interest in responding to your trolling or baiting. Its been going on a while, but I see its a pattern you've developed : Divert from the main issue and rant away when losing ground. Poor stuff. :down:


You have been repeating that yourself for quite a few posts now. Simple minds and all that. That's what people (and animals) generally do when they have no answer to an argument or perceive a threat and have run themselves into a corner.


Still, and I'm having to repeat this for the umpteenth time, I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were evenly matched. I don't agree and never will, nor are you going to budge. My opinion from what I recall and watching the season is that on balance Renault definitely had the better car, definitely had a massive advantage for 11 of the 18 races until the mass damper ban. Ferrari definitely started off on the backfoot, definitely had the advantage at a few races, but nowhere near enough to claim they were better. Your opinion is the opposite in effect and I'm fine with it.


Translation = you're free to believe in your theory and I in mine. Now **** off and stop entreating and begging someone that absolutely detests revisionists to reply. :wave:

Edited by BRK, 18 October 2011 - 09:59.


#14757 Skanka

Skanka
  • Member

  • 95 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 18 October 2011 - 10:16

Thanks for the link, never saw that footage before. He came from a long way back to outbreak Hill. Was Schumacher that bloody good or was Hill having tyre problems?

Well, Schumacher had fresher tyres as he was on a 3-stopper, while Damon stopped one time less. Still, it was quite a gutsy move, so a bit of both I guess!

The main point of debate here is some dreamy fans seem to think that the main reason why Alonso won the title in 2006 was because he had a dominating car which is completely untrue. Both Schumacher and Alonso had competitive machinery at their disposal and one came out tops because he had more points in the end which equates to better performance (since we're talking about the world championship which only regards points as the main criteria).

There is no debate here about which is the better approach to racing (Aggressive vs calculating).


Alonso had a more consistent car, which was always fighting at the top, apart from one occasion (in Germany, due to the loss of the mass dampener). If it wasn't the fastest car, then it was on par or behind the Ferrari, which means Alonso could settle for 2nd when needed. Schumacher couldn't afford that, because: (1) He was already on the back foot right from the start of the season due to the loss of competitiveness of Ferrari in Malaysia and Australia (2) Therefore he had to take more risks to catch-up (3) When it was raining, Ferrari was nowhere compared to the teams which were all on Michelins, so Schumacher was more exposed, and was bound to lose even more points then.

Would have been interesting to see if the roles were reverted, had Schumacher been in the Renault and Alonso in the Ferrari. I'm not sure Alonso would have taken the same conservative approach again. It's always easier when you have a sizeable lead in the championship standings and have a consistent car enough to finish either 1st or 2nd.

Edited by Skanka, 18 October 2011 - 10:19.


#14758 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 10:55

Sigh indeed. You brought up stats to 'prove' Ferrari were better, I brought up stats from Renault themselves to 'prove' Renault had the better car, then you had to embarrassingly abandon your statistics in favour of subjective quotes from interviews taken out of context. I did the same with more quotes than you were able to dig up and rubbished your 'evidence', and now you dismiss it as as being word games. The only one being embarrassing and stupid here is you.




I've provided enough material for anyone to have a look, including a poster that has done an analysis of the two drivers' driving styles. You're absolutely clueless on the matter so you refuse to accept anything that might point to Fisichella not being as comfortable with the R26 compared to his teammate (which I see you've omitted from point a). You've rejected a similar theory about Massa's driving style and how the Ferrari suited both his and Michael's styles well. Like I said you're just hell bent upon being stupidly adamant about a well-known issue and being an asshole about it.



Read those two sentences again. My quotes were also from people working at Renault, hardly an unbiased, objective source of information, and yet they have never once said Ferrari had an advantage in the second half of the season at the time the interviews were taken. All they're saying is that it's down to the tyres, that the balance could change from track to track or overnight. What's more, they're also denying Ferrari had an advantage at Monza, for instance, and that Renault were most certainly NOT on the backfoot. Ties in perfectly with what I have been saying and brings your ludicrous claims crashing down.

But again, I'm fine if you think the cars were evenly matched. I don't agree and never will as I remember the season well and have enough basis to back up this opinion.



You have been repeating that yourself for quite a few posts now. Simple minds and all that. That's what people (and animals) generally do when they have no answer to an argument or perceive a threat and have run themselves into a corner.




Translation = you're free to believe in your theory and I in mine. Now **** off and stop entreating and begging someone that absolutely detests revisionists to reply. :wave:

Another post full of rants and swear words, and nothing of substance. I dont know why you think using swear words and '****' makes a debate on a forum any more exciting or enlightening for you, but its not a level I'm willing to stoop down to. Total lack of class. :down::

Enjoy yourself and your mythical theories. You wont see any more replies from me to you.

#14759 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 October 2011 - 12:43

Actually I think about reporting you both. If you are so keen on extending your quarrel about past events, why don't you just make your own thread about Alonso vs Schumacher in 2006?

Edited by sharo, 18 October 2011 - 12:44.


Advertisement

#14760 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 October 2011 - 14:24

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

scientific fact??? because you say so? :rolleyes:
Read a few posts before your's to see a research with pilots so that you can see how older reacts slower.

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?

You are confused about what reaction time is. Simply moving your body is not reaction time.

Ok, let's stop with BS here, read this:

Buno Senna: "There are some games that are simulators. But when you're in a real race car, it gives you cues as to what it's going to do. So, when you go into a corner you might feel it move slightly, you know it's going to over steer.

In a game, if you go into the same corner with the same oversteer, you won't be able to catch it because by the time you realise it's happening it's too late. And that's because it takes roughly two or three times longer for your brain to realise what's going on just from sight alone, than when you're in the car and actually feeling it."
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/172684/interviews/brunno-senna-on-ferrari-challenge/

The reaction needed in the car is not even visual(which seems to be already slower for olders as the post of the other guys showed), it's physical and your "body"(not brain) gets much slower as you get old. Schumi's body reflexes are much likely to be slower(there might be a scientific proof somewhere).


PS: Please, stop with this off-topic of SchumiXAlonso in 2006, this thread is not to debate this.

#14761 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 18 October 2011 - 14:57

Schumi's body reflexes are much likely to be slower.....


.... than when he was 20 years old. We however do not know what his RT are compared to other drivers on the grid.

PS: Please, stop with this off-topic of SchumiXAlonso in 2006, this thread is not to debate this.


Awww give them a break, I feel sorry for them, FA fans need what little they can to cling to.


#14762 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 15:01

Read a few posts before your's to see a research with pilots so that you can see how older reacts slower.

wasnt that the one conducted in the 80s? questionable at best given its age

#14763 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 18 October 2011 - 18:38

wasnt that the one conducted in the 80s? questionable at best given its age

so what?

The text says:
"The simple reaction time for the supra threshold spot target got significantly longer with
age increased which is a well documented result (Welford, 1980)."

In 1980 they could measure reaction time as they can now and the test is valid.

Also note what Bruno Senna said, in driving, body percept the understeer/oversteer much quicker than the eyes, and that is probably where Schumi lost the most or do you people also think old people perceive forces with their bodies just as quickly as young ones?

#14764 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 18:56

so what?

The text says:
"The simple reaction time for the supra threshold spot target got significantly longer with
age increased which is a well documented result (Welford, 1980)."

In 1980 they could measure reaction time as they can now and the test is valid.

Also note what Bruno Senna said, in driving, body percept the understeer/oversteer much quicker than the eyes, and that is probably where Schumi lost the most or do you people also think old people perceive forces with their bodies just as quickly as young ones?

unless hes lost neural pathways why would he? he has done loads of drugs? smoked tons of cannabis? been an alchoholic? or always kept fit and had a healthy diet?

#14765 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 October 2011 - 20:58

wasnt that the one conducted in the 80s? questionable at best given its age

:rolleyes:
It was the stone age. They had stripey toothpaste and ICBMs, I'm sure they could stop spit roasting triceratops long enough to capably test reaction times.

#14766 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 21:21

:rolleyes:
It was the stone age. They had stripey toothpaste and ICBMs, I'm sure they could stop spit roasting triceratops long enough to capably test reaction times.

im sure they had brainwave scans and stuff in the 80s ! yes they are deadly accurate and still relevant results considering the scientific and medical breakthroughs we have had in the last 31 years!

you schumacher fans are something else

#14767 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 18 October 2011 - 21:28

im sure they had brainwave scans and stuff in the 80s ! yes they are deadly accurate and still relevant results considering the scientific and medical breakthroughs we have had in the last 31 years!

you schumacher fans are something else

Er, since when was it the default scientific position to automatically assume advances in monitering/testing accuracy will reverse results from earlier tests? :rolleyes: And even if, however unlikely, you're right, by you're own logic in 20 years you'll be wrong again :drunk: :lol:

#14768 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,441 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 18 October 2011 - 21:44

Physical reaction times are not, and never have been, important in racing drivers.

#14769 Frans

Frans
  • Member

  • 7,701 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 18 October 2011 - 22:01

Schumacher lost his reflex abilities when he dropped from that scooter or what was it, ... that Motorcycle. Remember?

He get's sick from the simulator (the rest of the field simply doesn't) and then also; he lost his Menace of a manager, who helped him inside the pits usually to do those nasty unfair things so now and then.

He has a woman as manager, and this is what you get; and old-out-burned-German wanna be-fast-as-ever driver. In a Mercedes, and you know that the Germans were singing about Schumacher in a Mercedes since what? I believe since before the year 2000. It's a German wet dream, but no one is comming.

#14770 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 18 October 2011 - 22:47

Schumacher lost his reflex abilities when he dropped from that scooter or what was it, ... that Motorcycle. Remember?

He get's sick from the simulator (the rest of the field simply doesn't) and then also; he lost his Menace of a manager, who helped him inside the pits usually to do those nasty unfair things so now and then.

He has a woman as manager, and this is what you get; and old-out-burned-German wanna be-fast-as-ever driver. In a Mercedes, and you know that the Germans were singing about Schumacher in a Mercedes since what? I believe since before the year 2000. It's a German wet dream, but no one is comming.

they could fix his simulation sickness so easy if they bothering to look into why some FPS games give gamers the same thing  ;)

"dead island" and "rage" are good examples

#14771 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 October 2011 - 23:09

So logically the next one to be discarded is Kimi Raikkonen as he also gets sick in a simulator.

#14772 rm111

rm111
  • Member

  • 406 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 19 October 2011 - 06:05

So does button aparently.

#14773 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:21

I am sure many people don't get sick in simulator, but they can't drive F1 car also.
Lets not bring Bruno Senna as expert here, because he is feeling forces very well with his body, this is why his results are so tragic.

Edited by ivand911, 19 October 2011 - 07:32.


#14774 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:23

He has a woman as manager, and this is what you get; and old-out-burned-German wanna be-fast-as-ever driver.


From Jos's website; "Max Verstappen from front row to disappointment"..

Looks like son is taking after father and how is Jos these days, staying out of jail still?


#14775 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,626 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 19 October 2011 - 07:34

Coulpe of things here:

Don't criticise games/simulators because they're already half way to becoming extremely accurate and those who don't like them had better start liking them because at this rate they're gonna be more accurate than reality !

My other point is, as usual all I can see in this thread and this forum is a bunch of kids arguing for the sake of arguing 'my dad's better than your dad...' and its totally pathetic, I cant believe none of you have noticed how pathetic you all sound.

Quit it FFS!! I keep having to remind myself every time I think 'why doesn't someone ban forums?' that its not the forums its the retarded morons that use them that's the problem.

#14776 KiloWatt

KiloWatt
  • Member

  • 1,189 posts
  • Joined: December 08

Posted 19 October 2011 - 08:58

Coulpe of things here:

Don't criticise games/simulators because they're already half way to becoming extremely accurate and those who don't like them had better start liking them because at this rate they're gonna be more accurate than reality !

My other point is, as usual all I can see in this thread and this forum is a bunch of kids arguing for the sake of arguing 'my dad's better than your dad...' and its totally pathetic, I cant believe none of you have noticed how pathetic you all sound.

Quit it FFS!! I keep having to remind myself every time I think 'why doesn't someone ban forums?' that its not the forums its the retarded morons that use them that's the problem.


Carefull now...

#14777 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 19 October 2011 - 09:03

Coulpe of things here:

Don't criticise games/simulators because they're already half way to becoming extremely accurate and those who don't like them had better start liking them because at this rate they're gonna be more accurate than reality !


In fact my impression is the opposite - they make the cars to correspond to the simulator.
And I will always prefer half an hour in a real kart on a real track than two hours in front of a computer screen no matter how good the simulator is.
But I guess I am still just a kid over 50 :rotfl:

#14778 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 19 October 2011 - 10:24

From Jos's website; "Max Verstappen from front row to disappointment"..

Looks like son is taking after father and how is Jos these days, staying out of jail still?


:lol: :up:

#14779 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 19 October 2011 - 14:41

Coulpe of things here:

Don't criticise games/simulators because they're already half way to becoming extremely accurate and those who don't like them had better start liking them because at this rate they're gonna be more accurate than reality !

My other point is, as usual all I can see in this thread and this forum is a bunch of kids arguing for the sake of arguing 'my dad's better than your dad...' and its totally pathetic, I cant believe none of you have noticed how pathetic you all sound.

Quit it FFS!! I keep having to remind myself every time I think 'why doesn't someone ban forums?' that its not the forums its the retarded morons that use them that's the problem.

how can a simulation of real life be more accurate than real life? where decades from proper realistic physics in computer games aswell.... all the sims do at the moment is convincingly fake physics

Advertisement

#14780 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 19 October 2011 - 14:53

Schumacher lost his reflex abilities when he dropped from that scooter or what was it, ... that Motorcycle. Remember?

He get's sick from the simulator (the rest of the field simply doesn't) and then also; he lost his Menace of a manager, who helped him inside the pits usually to do those nasty unfair things so now and then.

He has a woman as manager, and this is what you get; and old-out-burned-German wanna be-fast-as-ever driver. In a Mercedes, and you know that the Germans were singing about Schumacher in a Mercedes since what? I believe since before the year 2000. It's a German wet dream, but no one is comming.


Oh Franz, still at it..?

#14781 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 9,889 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 October 2011 - 14:59

It's a German wet dream, but no one is comming.


:rotfl:

#14782 T-Mobile

T-Mobile
  • Member

  • 665 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 October 2011 - 15:04

It's amazing how many pages the Schumacher and F150 threads get, then you look at the thread for the championship winning RB7 and its only on page 37. Yes, we all know with age people slow down. Does anybody have any evidence that even remotely justifies debating Schumacher's lack of reactions? Having said that, I am sure we can find other things to discuss.

As for simulations, if some people here attempted even basic Newtonian physics they would begin to realize how complex a simulation would have to be in order to be "accurate." There is obviously approximations and heuristics all over the place. They are a tool, not a substitute for the real thing (as some find out the hard way.)

#14783 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 19 October 2011 - 15:38

Physical reaction times are not, and never have been, important in racing drivers.

:lol:
Do you realise how idiotic that sounds after I have posted a real F1 driver claiming that reflexes are essential in real driving?

Lets not bring Bruno Senna as expert here, because he is feeling forces very well with his body, this is why his results are so tragic.

Ivan, I didn't expect to read such stuff from you :|
Bruno did great in almost all qualifyings and very well on Singapore's and Monza's race. But that is irrelevant. He is the one, BETTER THAN ANY OF US, to know what is required to drive a real car which is exposed to real forces.

Coulpe of things here:

Don't criticise games/simulators because they're already half way to becoming extremely accurate and those who don't like them had better start liking them because at this rate they're gonna be more accurate than reality !

My other point is, as usual all I can see in this thread and this forum is a bunch of kids arguing for the sake of arguing 'my dad's better than your dad...' and its totally pathetic, I cant believe none of you have noticed how pathetic you all sound.

Quit it FFS!! I keep having to remind myself every time I think 'why doesn't someone ban forums?' that its not the forums its the retarded morons that use them that's the problem.

and we are the retarded kids? (Buttoneer, I didn't name call him)

It's amazing how many pages the Schumacher and F150 threads get, then you look at the thread for the championship winning RB7 and its only on page 37. Yes, we all know with age people slow down. Does anybody have any evidence that even remotely justifies debating Schumacher's lack of reactions? Having said that, I am sure we can find other things to discuss.

As for simulations, if some people here attempted even basic Newtonian physics they would begin to realize how complex a simulation would have to be in order to be "accurate." There is obviously approximations and heuristics all over the place. They are a tool, not a substitute for the real thing (as some find out the hard way.)

Finally somebody with common sense. And I agree with you about everything about what simulation is.

#14784 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 19 October 2011 - 16:36

It's amazing how many pages the Schumacher and F150 threads get, then you look at the thread for the championship winning RB7 and its only on page 37. Yes, we all know with age people slow down. Does anybody have any evidence that even remotely justifies debating Schumacher's lack of reactions? Having said that, I am sure we can find other things to discuss.

As for simulations, if some people here attempted even basic Newtonian physics they would begin to realize how complex a simulation would have to be in order to be "accurate." There is obviously approximations and heuristics all over the place. They are a tool, not a substitute for the real thing (as some find out the hard way.)


Which is why we need more on track testing before, and during a season. I am beating this drum for very long time. (Actually since morning after testing was reduced). Benefit for the fan as I see it would be in enjoyment of full season racing, and not full season less first six races devoting debugging the car. Moreover, we would spared by seeing one team running away from the pack just because they had right car from the race one.

Edited by Sakae, 19 October 2011 - 16:37.


#14785 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,678 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 October 2011 - 17:00

As for simulations, if some people here attempted even basic Newtonian physics they would begin to realize how complex a simulation would have to be in order to be "accurate." There is obviously approximations and heuristics all over the place. They are a tool, not a substitute for the real thing (as some find out the hard way.)


I beg to differ on this one. Mc's sim is very-very close to reality, Merc has built a similar, or even more advanced one, Ferrari has started to build I think something like it already. Merc has said it is (acording to the deadlines set) approx 2 years to set it up to full functionality. So I wouldn't be so quick on burying the sim on the bases of "complexity", they can test virtually anything now in a simulator so advanced, from tyre wear to new parts aero efficiency. I know it is still a simulation, which is as good as the data pre-entered, so it is still a sim, but there is more to it by far than what you implied. Maybe four years ago what you said would be true, not any more.

#14786 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,772 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 19 October 2011 - 19:18

The very word "simulator" says it all. The rest is just the delusion of the gamers' generation. And the reason young people to drive on the streets like immortals, often killing not only themselves but innocent people.

This however has nothing to do with the real Michael Schumacher and this thread also.
Those having eyes and brains can see that he is coming back to form and is comparable to the younger front runners. More than 20 laps under Hamilton's pressure should tell you something. It was a mere coincidence that both cars' setups nullified the vast advantage of the Mac and we could see him defend and fight on almost equal terms.

Of course, age has its influence. I am 12 years older than him and I should know better. But human body and brain accommodate and compensate one thing with another, not to mention experience and maintaining fitness at the level of a younger man.

Edited by sharo, 19 October 2011 - 19:18.


#14787 T-Mobile

T-Mobile
  • Member

  • 665 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 October 2011 - 19:36

Ahh, it's always refreshing when sane comments surface on the forums. This year I really don't think there has been much to differentiate Nico and Michael's performances. It seems to sway a bit. However, it should become more clear if and when they get a competitive car.

Really, how exciting would next year be in Michael won one of the early races? You don't have to like the guy to know that we would be in for a treat.

#14788 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 October 2011 - 20:33

That isnt quite true.
Lap 14 was SC and everyoney stopped - and because Massa was in P1, MSC had to wait in the pit right behind him at the stop.
This loss of time gave Alonso P2.

I'll go into your post later on but for now I want to say:

First thing is true. Second thing is not. Ferrari sent Schumacher on his way with more fuel to stay out longer in the second stint. MSC was out on track going faster than Alonso, but went off, after that he didn't have enough laps to stretch the gap out enough. He pitted, came out third, and stayed there.

#14789 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,441 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 19 October 2011 - 20:39

:lol:
Do you realise how idiotic that sounds after I have posted a real F1 driver claiming that reflexes are essential in real driving?

Bruno is not even saying differing reaction times from drivers are relevant, he is saying that vision-only feedback, the lack of all the physical cues you have in a car, lead to slower response. That's not a matter of physical reaction times at all, its a matter of completeness of input. You are arguing aggressively and vigorously (not to say insultingly), all on the basis of your inability to read for comprehension. Might want to reconsider.

#14790 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,394 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 19 October 2011 - 20:48

Alonso had a more consistent car, which was always fighting at the top, apart from one occasion (in Germany, due to the loss of the mass dampener). If it wasn't the fastest car, then it was on par or behind the Ferrari, which means Alonso could settle for 2nd when needed. Schumacher couldn't afford that, because: (1) He was already on the back foot right from the start of the season due to the loss of competitiveness of Ferrari in Malaysia and Australia (2) Therefore he had to take more risks to catch-up (3) When it was raining, Ferrari was nowhere compared to the teams which were all on Michelins, so Schumacher was more exposed, and was bound to lose even more points then.

Would have been interesting to see if the roles were reverted, had Schumacher been in the Renault and Alonso in the Ferrari. I'm not sure Alonso would have taken the same conservative approach again. It's always easier when you have a sizeable lead in the championship standings and have a consistent car enough to finish either 1st or 2nd.

A bit of his massive pursuit is also to be found in the points regulations... Up til 2002 they went for 10-6-4-3-2-1. After that year: 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. It became massively more difficult with two reasonably even cars to close up a gap, only with a massive DNF streak it was to be closed. With Massa as a rookie, MSC was f'ed from the beginning. Not that I'm a Massa hater but it turned out in hindsight to be the wrong choice because his learning curve was too steep. That's the difference, at pure speed Massa at 2 or 3 races was able to match or be better than Schumacher (f.e. Germany and also the USA GP was really close) but not in highperformance consistency. Schumacher was always up there because of experience, Massa wasn't. Simply because it was his first season. Advantage Alonso.

#14791 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 19 October 2011 - 21:03

Bruno is not even saying differing reaction times from drivers are relevant, he is saying that vision-only feedback, the lack of all the physical cues you have in a car, lead to slower response. That's not a matter of physical reaction times at all, its a matter of completeness of input. You are arguing aggressively and vigorously (not to say insultingly), all on the basis of your inability to read for comprehension. Might want to reconsider.

sorry if I sounded "agressive" to you. I give up discussing it with you, though. I did understood what Bruno said, he highlighed how body reaction is faster than visual's, and that's how they respond to the cars handling, meaning it is extremely important.

Just think for a little about your last post to see how it contradicts Senna's claim.;)

PS: I'm already tired of this reaction time discussion, though.

Edited by Kubiccia, 19 October 2011 - 21:07.


#14792 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,323 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 19 October 2011 - 23:52

A bit of his massive pursuit is also to be found in the points regulations... Up til 2002 they went for 10-6-4-3-2-1. After that year: 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1. It became massively more difficult with two reasonably even cars to close up a gap, only with a massive DNF streak it was to be closed. With Massa as a rookie, MSC was f'ed from the beginning. Not that I'm a Massa hater but it turned out in hindsight to be the wrong choice because his learning curve was too steep. That's the difference, at pure speed Massa at 2 or 3 races was able to match or be better than Schumacher (f.e. Germany and also the USA GP was really close) but not in highperformance consistency. Schumacher was always up there because of experience, Massa wasn't. Simply because it was his first season. Advantage Alonso.


Massa was not a rookie when he was paired with MSC.

#14793 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,441 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 20 October 2011 - 00:20

sorry if I sounded "agressive" to you. I give up discussing it with you, though. I did understood what Bruno said, he highlighed how body reaction is faster than visual's, and that's how they respond to the cars handling, meaning it is extremely important.

Just think for a little about your last post to see how it contradicts Senna's claim.;)

PS: I'm already tired of this reaction time discussion, though.

We all are. You are however misinterpreting the lad to support your point and that's not on.


#14794 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 20 October 2011 - 01:36

I beg to differ on this one. Mc's sim is very-very close to reality, Merc has built a similar, or even more advanced one, Ferrari has started to build I think something like it already. Merc has said it is (acording to the deadlines set) approx 2 years to set it up to full functionality. So I wouldn't be so quick on burying the sim on the bases of "complexity", they can test virtually anything now in a simulator so advanced, from tyre wear to new parts aero efficiency. I know it is still a simulation, which is as good as the data pre-entered, so it is still a sim, but there is more to it by far than what you implied. Maybe four years ago what you said would be true, not any more.

merc can test new upgrades for aerodynamic efficenty on their simulator in real time? then explain why CFD takes so long?

its not possible to simulate full physics in real time only really basic fake physics, computers arent anywhere near powerful to simulate our understanding of physics in real time and they wont be for a very very long time
you cant simulate wind ,temprature , aerodynamics or anything else in real time either.

you cant just add a new front wing design into a simulator and expect to get real results like you would in a wind tunnel or on a trac

Edited by arknor, 20 October 2011 - 01:39.


#14795 hero

hero
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 20 October 2011 - 05:38

:|

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



On 2010 -

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



To link that with Massa's preferences:

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

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



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.


Its strange that during his time with Kimi, Massa was the one who could handle understeer, and Kimi was the one complaining of understeer because the car could not heat the front tyres enough. Sort of contradictory, and I notice to failed to include 2011 when Massa has publically stated the tyres suit him, yet his performance relative to Alonso has not changed, which indicates he is just making excuses like all drivers do. Another funny thing, is that if the pre 2010 tyres suited Massa so much, why did Fisichella dominate him as team mates in 2004?


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:


You have serious audacity to accuse others of being revisionists and having an agenda when you ignore Fisichella's own words, when he explicitly states he was very comfortable with the R26, and try using a random person on a forum as your evidence. Its amazing you think that is a credible argument, but I guess that is normal for desperate revisionists. They ignore reality, make up their own and point the finger at others. And secondly, you are also under the false assumption that two drivers with different driving styles cannot be comfortable in the same car. No evidence presented at all, and if you take a lot at Mclaren it seems to be working well.


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



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



I wonder if you would be agreeing with Renault if they had stated Ferrari had the best car of the season? Somehow I doubt it. We don't need someones opinion as to what was the best car of 2006 because that is quite clear if you understand the sport and drivers, and now it is very clear who had the best car since we have had the pleasure of seeing Alonso and Massa in equal cars. There is no way possible that the Ferrari could not have been the best car of 2006, and interestingly, every shred of evidence points to it. Let me explain so you understand it, not that you seem interested in understanding anything that does not agree with your agenda.

1. Massa has been team mates to both Alonso and Fisichella, and their relative performances in 2006 strongly indicates, the Ferrari was the best car of 2006. Important to take note there is correlation between both of these measurements, and zero correlation with yours because you have not presented any.

2. Massa was new to the team, while Fisichella was established, with the car, team and engineers, which flys in the face of your totally groundless claims that Massa was the more comfortable driver of 2006.

3. The performance gap between Alonso and Massa is greater than it was between Michael and an inexperienced Massa in 2006.

Every measure we have points to Ferrari being the better car in 2006. Not some, but all, and in that circumstance its impossible for you to be right. Infact you have to be monumentally wrong for everything to be contradicting your argument.

Edited by hero, 20 October 2011 - 06:02.


#14796 hero

hero
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 20 October 2011 - 05:49

Of course Giancarlo was more comfortable with the R26 compared to the R25. Not compared to his teammate, to the Ferrari, to Massa or whatever. Not sure what this is supposed to prove.


It proves that your claims are 100% unfounded because the very words of the Fisichella directly contradict your claims. I give you credit for creativity though.

On the other hand you've rejected theories about Fisichella's own driving style and the difference between his and his teammate's styles. I think I'll have to assume that, unlike the poster that seems to have analysed onboards of the two drivers in question and presented a pretty good case, you are clueless on the topic.

Yes he has rejected a theory from a random on an internet forum, as you would do.

Nothing useless about pointing out revisionism when I see it. The frustrating thing about 'arguing' with such people is they need proof and links for everything on the internet apparently, you could argue all day long that the sun rises in the east but these adamant sorts wouldn't be satisfied until a video of a sunrise was presented, and even that wouldn't be enough.


A good description of someone who denys the words from a driver when it does not agree with his agenda, , for the words of a random on a forum, yet quotes words from the another driver (massa) when they agree with his agenda. (massa)

Too bad. As I have been saying all along, it was a season of tyres, track characteristics and ups\downs, probably more than than a lot of other F1 seasons, Bell and Symonds pretty much echo the sentiments. So would anybody that actually followed the season. There was no neat division of the season into two halves w.r.t. performance or some such fairytale.

Still, and I'm having to repeat this for the umpteenth time, I'm fine with the opinion that the two cars were evenly matched. I don't agree and never will, nor are you going to budge. My opinion from what I recall and watching the season is that on balance Renault definitely had the better car, definitely had a massive advantage for 11 of the 18 races until the mass damper ban. Ferrari definitely started off on the backfoot, definitely had the advantage at a few races, but nowhere near enough to claim they were better. Your opinion is the opposite in effect and I'm fine with it.


How did Ferrari start off on the back foot when they locked out the front row at the first race of the season??? Renalt had an advantagein maybe 5 of the first 9 races, the rest was Ferrari mistakes, an from Indy it was Ferrari domination apart from china and Hungary, where even a green Massa was able to dominate races and get poles, which proves beyond all doubt how good that car was, when you look at his performances since 2010.

Too bad. As I have been saying all along, it was a season of tyres, track characteristics and ups\downs, probably more than than a lot of other F1 seasons, Bell and Symonds pretty much echo the sentiments. So would anybody that actually followed the season. There was no neat division of the season into two halves w.r.t. performance or some such fairytale.


True. The balance varied from race to race, but on balance Ferrari had the advantage more often than not, but from Indy it was generally the best in the dry and by a margin. Michael was not at his best at 36, so it should not be hard to accept that at that point Alonso was the superior driver.

Edited by hero, 20 October 2011 - 06:30.


#14797 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:10

Guys, go discuss 2006 in some Alonso thread , because we really don't care!!
We, MS fans don't go in Alonso thread, because we feel superior. We don't have needs to go there and to prove something. Only Alonso fans come here?
Anthony Davidson said one time that MS get sick in simulator and we will continue with this story forever????
Since then MGP changed their simulator at least one time. We don't know if MS get sick in the new simulator? We don't know if what about AD was telling is not separate incident? We all have bad days. And lastly I don't think if it is still true ,that is hindering MS on the track.

Edited by ivand911, 20 October 2011 - 07:16.


#14798 Igorr

Igorr
  • Member

  • 223 posts
  • Joined: August 11

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:33

guys, what do u think about next season suiting schumi's driving style more, with the "normal" exhaust rules and the ban of the blown diffuser? He can definitely change the corner approach, and use his old method of braking into the corner with the throttle still open? It should be a good advantage as we know how good he used to be in that.

#14799 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:46

guys, what do u think about next season suiting schumi's driving style more, with the "normal" exhaust rules and the ban of the blown diffuser? He can definitely change the corner approach, and use his old method of braking into the corner with the throttle still open? It should be a good advantage as we know how good he used to be in that.

Could be. He will have to change his driving style from this year for sure. But, will he go back to his old driving style or he will find better driving style for next year car I don't know. Will see. Could be some mixed driving style with new and old elements. He will find out what make car go faster.


Advertisement

#14800 hero

hero
  • Member

  • 99 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 20 October 2011 - 07:49

guys, what do u think about next season suiting schumi's driving style more, with the "normal" exhaust rules and the ban of the blown diffuser? He can definitely change the corner approach, and use his old method of braking into the corner with the throttle still open? It should be a good advantage as we know how good he used to be in that.


I thought the driving style excuse was used up this year? I would have expected schumacher fans to be aware that michaels great strength used to be the ability to adapt and drive anything fast, regardless of handling. He might of had a driving preference, but it was never a single style he relied on.