Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#16301 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 24,024 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 03 January 2012 - 21:50

The average was also correct it being 0.49s


The average is .36 approximately. Ill take the rest of your numbers as equally reliable

Advertisement

#16302 Rambazamba

Rambazamba
  • Member

  • 357 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 03 January 2012 - 21:53

Yes he would have had more poles, this sort of asks the question is Rosberg the best qualifier now, even better than Vettel, or has age lost Schumacher his out and out pace?


Maybe a bit of both.
I think Nico is a very strong qualifier, it´s not only his speed which is impressive and he hardly ever makes a mistake on the final lap.
This is why I think there are a few other drivers out there who would have a hard time against him too.
Nonetheless it´s a bit strange to see Michael beeing on par or only 1-2 tenth behind on several occasions and suddenly lacking 0,5-1 second behind at the next section or weekend.

Edited by Rambazamba, 03 January 2012 - 21:54.


#16303 Madras

Madras
  • Member

  • 3,911 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 03 January 2012 - 21:58

Nonetheless it´s a bit strange to see Michael beeing on par or only 1-2 tenth behind on several occasions and suddenly lacking 0,5-1 second behind at the next section or weekend.


Well it could be certain types of corner where Schumacher has lost a bit of his edge.

#16304 Rambazamba

Rambazamba
  • Member

  • 357 posts
  • Joined: February 08

Posted 03 January 2012 - 22:03

Well it could be certain types of corner where Schumacher has lost a bit of his edge.


I though that too last year and indeed he lost most of the time at the slower sections, as Ross confirmed.
This year I couldn´t spot a certain pattern for special kind of tracks or corners tbh.


#16305 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 January 2012 - 22:06

Maybe a bit of both.
I think Nico is a very strong qualifier, it´s not only his speed which is impressive and he hardly ever makes a mistake on the final lap.
This is why I think there are a few other drivers out there who would have a hard time against him too.
Nonetheless it´s a bit strange to see Michael beeing on par or only 1-2 tenth behind on several occasions and suddenly lacking 0,5-1 second behind at the next section or weekend.

There was many strange things this year for MS qualifying. Very close or ahead and next big difference??
tyker can you give us now the race gaps? It is more important for me.

#16306 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 January 2012 - 22:42

In fact, Michael was never a real ball of fire at qualifying. It took him 250 GPs to top Senna's pole record of 65 poles which was done in only 161 events. As a point of reference, Vettel already has 30 poles in only 80 races.

Schumacher didn't have super qualifying cars as Senna and Vettel had/have many times. In 93, he was 8/8 against Senna in qualifyings and both had the same engine on their cars(Mclaren had a less spec model in the first races but had equal spec engines afterwards) and you can't say Benneton was really better than Mclaren. Watch Silverstone's and Spa's 93 qualifying to see the enormous gap Schumacher opened to Senna in sections where Senna had no problem as excuse.

Schumacher, in qualifyings, beaten Piquet, all his Benneton team mates, Irvine(who was thought to be a great driver while driving the Jordan), Barrichello and Massa.

Schumacher only had dominant car in 2001/2002/parts of 2003/2004/parts of 2006. Untill there he never really had car to pole but he managed to be there on pure talent. During those mentioned dominant years, Ferrari was super quick in race pace because of the nature of Bridgestone's tires, while in qualifyings, the Michelins were almost always better. That's the reason Schumi had less poles in 01/02/04 than one would expect.

Yes he would have had more poles, this sort of asks the question is Rosberg the best qualifier now, even better than Vettel, or has age lost Schumacher his out and out pace?

Rosberg is a very good qualifier but, to me, the main reason is that the 43 years old Schumi(completed today) has lost quite some raw speed.

#16307 ClockworkRacing

ClockworkRacing
  • Member

  • 316 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 03 January 2012 - 23:10

Schumacher was indeed a great qualifier back in his day,in the 1998 season,for instance,he managed to put that crap car on pole several times.In the early 2000´s he couldn´t make so many poles because of the Michelin tyres besides the fact that Williams had a special engine that BMW made only for qualifying that had plus 80 hp.

But IMO he lost around 1 sec of raw speed

#16308 spa08

spa08
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 03 January 2012 - 23:13

Schumacher was indeed a great qualifier back in his day,in the 1998 season,for instance,he managed to put that crap car on pole several times.In the early 2000´s he couldn´t make so many poles because of the Michelin tyres besides the fact that Williams had a special engine that BMW made only for qualifying that had plus 80 hp.

But IMO he lost around 1 sec of raw speed


I'm sure you've got plenty of evidence to prove he's lost around a second

#16309 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,420 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 03 January 2012 - 23:26

I don't think he's lost a second but his senses, reflexes etc have all slowed down.

It's like the boxer who was once great (think Roy Jones Jr) now can't get out of way of punches even though he knows what to do, his body can't pull the trigger any more.

Schumacher - while not completely 'shot' - simply cannot turn back the time.

#16310 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 January 2012 - 23:27

Actually except for Senna the rest of the multiple WDC's fit about there as well.



Uhm, Jim Clark had 33 poles out of 72 starts...

#16311 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 January 2012 - 23:33

For whatever reason Rosberg does a better job of bringing the finicky tires up to temperature without hurting them.


Maybe the reason is that Nico is a pretty decent driver?
'for whatever reason'.... :rolleyes:

#16312 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 January 2012 - 23:36

Fantasy numbers pulled out of your ass dont contribute anything to a discussion.


And you are not contributing much to the discussion with remarks like that......

#16313 tyker

tyker
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 02:29

The average is .36 approximately. Ill take the rest of your numbers as equally reliable

I'm not actually guessing though

Maybe a bit of both.
I think Nico is a very strong qualifier, it´s not only his speed which is impressive and he hardly ever makes a mistake on the final lap.
This is why I think there are a few other drivers out there who would have a hard time against him too.
Nonetheless it´s a bit strange to see Michael beeing on par or only 1-2 tenth behind on several occasions and suddenly lacking 0,5-1 second behind at the next section or weekend.

I agree perhaps Rosberg is a bit underestimated by some

There was many strange things this year for MS qualifying. Very close or ahead and next big difference??
tyker can you give us now the race gaps? It is more important for me.

I don't have data for the races only an overall impression that they were generally quite even, obviously Schumacher was handicapped somewhat by his qualifying but made up for it a lot by his starts and overtakes in the races, maybe he took a few risks as he had a few comings together in the races. I feel the qualifying needs to improve next year, its so strange because thats what used to be one of his strongest points.

#16314 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 January 2012 - 07:56

Actually Schumacher has always been an excellent qualifier regularly beating his teammates easily


Not too hard when the team and car is concentrated around you, I was referring to against other competitors.



Uhm, Jim Clark had 33 poles out of 72 starts...


And Fango had 29 from 52 - at times they both had 100hp more and lighter cars than the rest of the field - what a surprise.

I am referring to more modern eras.

Edited by cheapracer, 04 January 2012 - 07:57.


#16315 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:04

The average is .36 approximately. Ill take the rest of your numbers as equally reliable


lol obviously not as reliable as you approximation. Fact is the gap was half a second, the second largest gap on the grid. Obviously hard to accept for Schumacher fans, hence your attitude, but its very true.

#16316 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,622 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:15

lol obviously not as reliable as you approximation. Fact is the gap was half a second, the second largest gap on the grid. Obviously hard to accept for Schumacher fans, hence your attitude, but its very true.


Not so. According to F1 Stats the average qualifying gap btwn Rosberg & Schumacher was 0.366 seconds. They look pretty reliable to me. Hey, they even have a race by race graph.

link here

#16317 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2012 - 08:20

ouch...that will hurt - seems Badog was pretty much spot on...Isometic bacon better work on his figures again

#16318 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:03

Not so. According to F1 Stats the average qualifying gap btwn Rosberg & Schumacher was 0.366 seconds. They look pretty reliable to me. Hey, they even have a race by race graph.

link here



They are wrong because their system is flawed by taking the Q3 times instead of the quickest qualifying time, which massively distorts the real picture.

At Monza it counts Rosbergs Q3 times of 1:24.477, instead of his 1:23.335 in Q2, so instead of being 4 tenths quicker than Michael he was 9 tenths slower!
Same thing at Monaco, his best qualifying lap was 1 tenth slower than Michael but his much slower Q3 time was counted as 1.1 slower than Michael.

If we adjust these numbers properly, and measure their fastest laps, (their real speed) then it goes upto around half a second.

Edited by IsometricBacon, 04 January 2012 - 09:06.


#16319 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,622 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:30

So what you're saying then is that if you cherry pick lap times from three different sessions as best suits your agenda, then you end up with the result you're looking for.  ;)

As the saying goes: There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.

Advertisement

#16320 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:45

So what you're saying then is that if you cherry pick lap times from three different sessions as best suits your agenda, then you end up with the result you're looking for. ;)

As the saying goes: There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.



No I am saying just pick the fastest lap time the driver was capable of in qualifying. What session it happened in is totally irrelevant for this exercise. Anything else would actually be cherry picking.

#16321 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:48

and here's me thinking that qualifying was based on your fastest lap in the session you managed to get into. Silly me, we should just go back to the 12 lap qualifying (I wish we could) cause then we wouldn't have cherry pickers here.

Actually, why don't we just pick the fastest lap over the entire weekend - whether it be race, practice or qualifying.... :rolleyes:

Edited by Raelene, 04 January 2012 - 09:49.


#16322 krea

krea
  • Member

  • 1,123 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:56

No I am saying just pick the fastest lap time the driver was capable of in qualifying. What session it happened in is totally irrelevant for this exercise. Anything else would actually be cherry picking.


but Q2 is not about the fastest lap but about the is good enough for Q3 lap.

#16323 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:56

and here's me thinking that qualifying was based on your fastest lap in the session you managed to get into.


You are right it is, but this is a discussion about raw pace, not qualifying grid positions, and raw pace is judged on fastest laps and nothing else. Nobody reasonable would argue against this.

#16324 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:58

well as I said - why don't you look at all sessions and the race - and also read what krea said

#16325 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 09:59

but Q2 is not about the fastest lap but about the is good enough for Q3 lap.


I am not suggesting to only use q2. I am suggesting to simply use the fastest qualifying lap. Either way its not important if Michael was 0.37 or 0.47 slower, that was just a desperate attempt by a Schumacher fan to try to side step the issue at hand. Point is he was much slower than Rosberg in qualifying.

#16326 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:00

well as I said - why don't you look at all sessions and the race - and also read what krea said


In qualifying both drivers are driving as fast as possible and there are no other sessions that would be faster than qualifying.

#16327 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,342 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:00

and what do yu do if a driver doesn't set a final qualifying lap - like MS has done a couple of times.

You are cherry picking to suit your agenda..

MS fans know that NR was faster than MS in qualifying - you don't have to jack up the numbers


Edited by Raelene, 04 January 2012 - 10:02.


#16328 Paco

Paco
  • Member

  • 1,430 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:07

Well.. If people must have a direct comparison between drivers. Then look at a each weekend as a whole and exclude races for both drivers where:

1. A driver had a mechanical dnf. Skews results to much in favor of other driver.
2. Exclude any races where a driver got a penalty for any reason.
3. Exclude any race where a team mate got taken out by another driver while in the lead position in the altercation even if teammate was ahead.

Basically, only look at weekends where both drivers were free and clear with no excuses or reasons for underperforming and compare there point total.

I don't know how it work out but I'd guess nico comes out ahead. Why? Simply, can drive the merc better then Michael over a 3lap stint, gets into less bumper cars and brings home the points more often. MS may be better in races and occasionally brings home higher ranking points but loses too many due to banging wheels with much lessor opponents and can't get the most out of the tires yet over 3 laps.

#16329 IsometricBacon

IsometricBacon
  • Member

  • 102 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:15

and what do yu do if a driver doesn't set a final qualifying lap - like MS has done a couple of times.

You are cherry picking to suit your agenda..



No, you just select the fastest qualifying time. Simple, it works for every excuse you can invent to try and avoid the truth.

#16330 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:24

And Fango had 29 from 52 - at times they both had 100hp more and lighter cars than the rest of the field - what a surprise.


In Clark's case are you referring to 1967 and the dfv?
Just curious cause I know you can't be talking of the period between say 1962 and 1966 cause there was no 100 hp difference then....

Edited by jj2728, 04 January 2012 - 10:25.


#16331 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,839 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 January 2012 - 10:28

Actually, why don't we just pick the fastest lap over the entire weekend - whether it be race, practice or qualifying.... :rolleyes:


Why? What difference is that going to make?
People are gonna cherry pick this and that ad finitum to suit their agendas....

#16332 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:08

In qualifying both drivers are driving as fast as possible and there are no other sessions that would be faster than qualifying.

This is where you make your biggest mistake. Yeah some times MS was quicker in Free practice than Q. Go figure.


#16333 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 24,024 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:24

It actually seems pretty hard for some people to get their heads around the idea that, on the whole, the takeaway from this season for a fan of Michael has been very positive and that he is looking good for next year. Sure he had qualifying issues, noone is going to disagree with that.. his race performances were such that the dedicated bashers are left going 'QUALY QUALY QUALY SHUTUP QUALY' which is very amusing.

Think about this.. even WITH definitively (and deserved) much better qualy position, Nico needed both better reliability and several accident induced DNFs to avoid being beaten handily on points. On saturday Nico was the best of the two, but the best raceday driver in the merc was Schumacher by a significant margin, I'm completely convinced of that.

#16334 spa08

spa08
  • Member

  • 615 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 11:50

This is where you make your biggest mistake. Yeah some times MS was quicker in Free practice than Q. Go figure.


Well if Michael can't replicate this performance on a Saturday it well and truly squashes the myth that he is a master at car setup and development

#16335 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,958 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 04 January 2012 - 14:40

I know everyone is bored like hell, but this qualy/qualy gap/ discussion is like a broken record. Nobody can deny the fact that MS was spanked in qualys. Fooling around with stats to soften that fact is useless. Fooling around with stats to rub in some salt is even more useless. NR is a superb qualifier, among other things. We'll see how MS fares in qualys next season, nothing else to do.

Edited by Szoelloe, 04 January 2012 - 14:40.


#16336 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 15:39

So what you're saying then is that if you cherry pick lap times from three different sessions as best suits your agenda, then you end up with the result you're looking for. ;)

As the saying goes: There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.


LOL




#16337 Clark65

Clark65
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 16:35

IsometricBacon, explain me this.
How many points did Rosberg got from qualifying in better position?

Schumacher had some issues with his speed in qualifying and it is was hurting his chances in races, no doubt about that.

But at the end of the season, difference between him and Rosberg was only 13 points. Where did that great advantage in qualifying disappeared?

And if you take a closer look in all race lap times, you will see that Schumacher usually had better race pace.


Sorry for my bad english.

Edited by Clark65, 04 January 2012 - 16:36.


#16338 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 04 January 2012 - 16:48

IsometricBacon, explain me this.
How many points did Rosberg got from qualifying in better position?

Schumacher had some issues with his speed in qualifying and it is was hurting his chances in races, no doubt about that.

But at the end of the season, difference between him and Rosberg was only 13 points. Where did that great advantage in qualifying disappeared?

And if you take a closer look in all race lap times, you will see that Schumacher usually had better race pace.


Sorry for my bad english.

Your English is fine and your reasoning even better. Bashing MS on basis of qualifying is desperate behaviour by those painfully aware that he was as good or better on Sundays - by far the most important. The fact that the old man has actually improved releative to Rosberg despite being yet another year into his dotage is not what the usual suspects expected or wanted, so they're forced to hammer away where they can, which was his of course qualifying.

#16339 Group B

Group B
  • Member

  • 13,971 posts
  • Joined: March 02

Posted 04 January 2012 - 16:53

Well if Michael can't replicate this performance on a Saturday it well and truly squashes the myth that he is a master at car setup and development

:lol:


Advertisement

#16340 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2012 - 17:32

This is how the things happen:
Ross: Michael please start every race at least 2-3 places behind Nico. Data shows you are to quick for him. We try to develop this boy not to destroy him. And the car is shit you know.
MS: OK.

#16341 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 17:41

At least he won't have to deal with Petrov and Senna next year lol


#16342 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 18:00

This is how the things happen:
Ross: Michael please start every race at least 2-3 places behind Nico. Data shows you are to quick for him. We try to develop this boy not to destroy him. And the car is shit you know.
MS: OK.


I know you love Michael too ivan, but really?

I've skim read the past few pages. Nico has clearly been better than Michael in quali. Does any more really need to be said on this? If the gap is about 0.35s then that seems about right to me.

I attribute this to 3 things, in order of importance

i) Nico is very quick. It would be interesting to see a 3rd driver trying to qualify the Merc to see where he ends up, but I have no problem saying Nico is faster in quali
ii) Michael has probably lost some speed, and the blown exhaust and tyres etc don't play to his strengths - but those are the regs etc so thats tough really
iii) A possible bias towards race setup for Michael and quali for Nico, but thats speculation based on race pace, I can't qualify that

Michael still has a lot to offer F1 racing in terms of entertainment and hopefully putting in strong drives (which he has had a few of) more consistently. But he is about 10 years past when most people have their peak, and I think that has to be reasonably and realistically taken into account, both in accepting his new career won't match the last one, but also in that in his last career he was a lot younger and frankly the two shouldn't be compared - either to use his current performance to discredit his previous achievements, or to keep saying 7xWDC in the face of having a clearly very quick team mate.

Still love the guy for the effort and the fact he never gives up in races.

#16343 tyker

tyker
  • Member

  • 266 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 18:08

[

Not so. According to F1 Stats the average qualifying gap btwn Rosberg & Schumacher was 0.366 seconds. They look pretty reliable to me. Hey, they even have a race by race graph.

link here



They are wrong because their system is flawed by taking the Q3 times instead of the quickest qualifying time, which massively distorts the real picture.

At Monza it counts Rosbergs Q3 times of 1:24.477, instead of his 1:23.335 in Q2, so instead of being 4 tenths quicker than Michael he was 9 tenths slower!
Same thing at Monaco, his best qualifying lap was 1 tenth slower than Michael but his much slower Q3 time was counted as 1.1 slower than Michael.

If we adjust these numbers properly, and measure their fastest laps, (their real speed) then it goes upto around half a second.



So what you're saying then is that if you cherry pick lap times from three different sessions as best suits your agenda, then you end up with the result you're looking for. ;)

As the saying goes: There are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.



but Q2 is not about the fastest lap but about the is good enough for Q3 lap.

My method was simply to take the fastest time in qualifying where both drivers took part, i remember not using Monaco because Rosberg wasn't able to post a representative time because of the red flag caused by Perez

#16344 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 January 2012 - 18:33

At least he won't have to deal with Petrov and Senna next year lol

It is not sure thing yet, and there will be other new kids on the block. Track hazards.


#16345 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 January 2012 - 18:49

It is not sure thing yet, and there will be other new kids on the block. Track hazards.


Schumacher himself has stated the majority of his collisions with Petrov were his own fault, don't let that get in your way though. :wave:

#16346 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 759 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 20:23

It is not sure thing yet, and there will be other new kids on the block. Track hazards.


When Michael came back into the sport is was like he was a marked man. Every chump on the block wanted to "make his bones" by overtaking the 7xwdc. For a while it was Petrov getting in his way. Then when he faded Senna took his place. With the exception of Barrchello (for obvious reasons) you didn't see any of the experienced drivers causing him problems. That's because experienced drivers don't do unexpected or reckless moves.

If either Petrov or Senna do get a ride this year it will be in a car that is so slow they won't be causing anyone at the front a problem.


#16347 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,705 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 04 January 2012 - 20:37

When Michael came back into the sport is was like he was a marked man. Every chump on the block wanted to "make his bones" by overtaking the 7xwdc. For a while it was Petrov getting in his way. Then when he faded Senna took his place. With the exception of Barrchello (for obvious reasons) you didn't see any of the experienced drivers causing him problems. That's because experienced drivers don't do unexpected or reckless moves.

If either Petrov or Senna do get a ride this year it will be in a car that is so slow they won't be causing anyone at the front a problem.



When did Barrichello cause him problems? I can remember Schumacher nearly killing him in Hungary but I can't recall anything Rubens has done?



#16348 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 January 2012 - 23:57

Schumacher was indeed a great qualifier back in his day,in the 1998 season,for instance,he managed to put that crap car on pole several times.In the early 2000´s he couldn´t make so many poles because of the Michelin tyres besides the fact that Williams had a special engine that BMW made only for qualifying that had plus 80 hp.

But IMO he lost around 1 sec of raw speed

:up:

Uhm, Jim Clark had 33 poles out of 72 starts...

so what? Schumacher took about 10 years to have the best car(from late 91, to 2000). During those period, he had most of the time 2nd/3rd best car and eventually a car matching the fastest for some ocasions. When he finally had the clear dominant car in 2001 onwards, Michelin made the difference in qualifyings.

Well if Michael can't replicate this performance on a Saturday it well and truly squashes the myth that he is a master at car setup and development

I never believed that.

I know everyone is bored like hell, but this qualy/qualy gap/ discussion is like a broken record. Nobody can deny the fact that MS was spanked in qualys. Fooling around with stats to soften that fact is useless. Fooling around with stats to rub in some salt is even more useless. NR is a superb qualifier, among other things. We'll see how MS fares in qualys next season, nothing else to do.

worse than 2011, as he's just getting older.

In 2010 he beaten Nico in Barcelona, Turkey and Spa fair and square, I mean, he really was faster than Nico and no cherry picking is involved. He had some technical troubles is some sessions and in others he was trashed by Nico.

A year older in 2011, Schumacher never really beaten Nico in qualifying. In Monaco, Nico didn't set a proper time in Q3.

#16349 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,622 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:07

You are right it is, but this is a discussion about raw pace, not qualifying grid positions, and raw pace is judged on fastest laps and nothing else. Nobody reasonable would argue against this.


Backtracking a bit more are we? :lol: The discussion was clearly about qualifying pace, wherein you claimed (incorrectly) that Nico was half a second faster than Michael. Here's a few of your posts:

Turkey qualifying he was 9 tenths slower. There were a few other races where he was around 1 second a lap slower. My point remains even if its 0.5 which was the average.


They are wrong because their system is flawed by taking the Q3 times instead of the quickest qualifying time, which massively distorts the real picture.

At Monza it counts Rosbergs Q3 times of 1:24.477, instead of his 1:23.335 in Q2, so instead of being 4 tenths quicker than Michael he was 9 tenths slower!
Same thing at Monaco, his best qualifying lap was 1 tenth slower than Michael but his much slower Q3 time was counted as 1.1 slower than Michael.

If we adjust these numbers properly, and measure their fastest laps, (their real speed) then it goes upto around half a second.


No I am saying just pick the fastest lap time the driver was capable of in qualifying. What session it happened in is totally irrelevant for this exercise. Anything else would actually be cherry picking.


I am not suggesting to only use q2. I am suggesting to simply use the fastest qualifying lap. Either way its not important if Michael was 0.37 or 0.47 slower, that was just a desperate attempt by a Schumacher fan to try to side step the issue at hand. Point is he was much slower than Rosberg in qualifying.


In qualifying both drivers are driving as fast as possible and there are no other sessions that would be faster than qualifying.


No, you just select the fastest qualifying time. Simple, it works for every excuse you can invent to try and avoid the truth.


If you want to talk about pace, lets talk about race pace. The trouble is Schumacher's race pace was generally better than Nico's, so that won't work for you. I guess you're left with cherry picking times from various sessions then.

Incidentally your whole analysis leaves a lot to be desired. Firstly, you absolutely cannot rely on drivers going as fast as possible during qualifying. There's lots of times when that's not the case. Secondly, if you pick random times from various sessions, you've eliminated the common denominator, as conditions are constantly changing. If you really insist on comparing Q pace, then each session must be taken as its own sample. Otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges. Thirdly, according to the rules Q1 & Q2 times are wiped out for those who make it to Q3, so its pointless to include them in any discussion, as they count for exactly nothing.

BTW, fastest laps don't account for any points, look at Raikkonen's final season. A bunch of fastest laps, but nowhere in the Championship, to the point where he was ousted by Ferrari.

Bottom line: Schumi was generally slower than Nico in qualifying, but not nearly to the extent you were claiming. Why not just accept this and move on?

Edited by Craven Morehead, 05 January 2012 - 02:11.


#16350 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,958 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 05 January 2012 - 02:15

:up:


so what? Schumacher took about 10 years to have the best car(from late 91, to 2000). During those period, he had most of the time 2nd/3rd best car and eventually a car matching the fastest for some ocasions. When he finally had the clear dominant car in 2001 onwards, Michelin made the difference in qualifyings.


I never believed that.


worse than 2011, as he's just getting older.

In 2010 he beaten Nico in Barcelona, Turkey and Spa fair and square, I mean, he really was faster than Nico and no cherry picking is involved. He had some technical troubles is some sessions and in others he was trashed by Nico.

A year older in 2011, Schumacher never really beaten Nico in qualifying. In Monaco, Nico didn't set a proper time in Q3.



yaye mate. That's about the time they started with extreme engine mapping. You are so sure he will be worse, and I am not, but whatever. We will have to wait until next season.

Edited by Szoelloe, 05 January 2012 - 02:16.