Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#16801 Richardc

Richardc
  • Member

  • 235 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:28

Are you serious? So you could say that if a driver has a DNF, his race stratergy was wrong because it didn't pay off - **** the reason?

Advertisement

#16802 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:33

I can't add on Diablo's post, because it's summed up perfectly.

So those "2 of the 3 times" he was ON COURSE to better his position and thus making it an advantage. Had he not had those avoidable collisions he, IIRC, would have finished 6th/7th in both races.

#16803 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:34

But it didn't pay off.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Desperation, no logic, jj.

#16804 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:35

I think its a fair point to suggest, as I have a couple of pages back, that starting down the grid makes a tangle with another car more likely.

One only has to look back through this thread to see how many times we have said 'I just hope he can avoid a collision with Petrov/Senna/Insert random midfielder here'. Even if all the collisions weren't his fault they still could have been avoided by simply not being in the presence of those cars, which in terms of race pace he shouldn't have been.

No one ever said in 2011 'this race will be ok as long as Michael avoids a collision with Mark Webber'.

#16805 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,799 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:37

Are you serious? So you could say that if a driver has a DNF, his race stratergy was wrong because it didn't pay off - **** the reason?


Yes I'm serious, he was behind his teammate and Perez at the time and had he possibly out qualified his teammate there may never have been an incident as he very well could have been ahead of him.

#16806 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:44

Yes I'm serious, he was behind his teammate and Perez at the time and had he possibly out qualified his teammate there may never have been an incident as he very well could have been ahead of him.

These are avoidable accidents and are indictive of Schumacher's eagerness as opposed to his tyre strategies. Yes, qualifying back down has left him to mingle with less competent drivers but as we are solely discussing his TYRE strategy his collisions should not be considered.

#16807 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,799 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:44

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Desperation, no logic, jj.


You see? This is the response one gets when he gives someone the proof he has been calling for. I am only quoting the stats. Some of you love the stats so much when it comes to drivers, that when the stats are pointed out that person is called desperate and illogical. To say that he was 'on course', is not a stat is it? The stat is that 2 out of the 3 times he set no time in Q3 he failed either out of the points or dnf'd....

#16808 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,799 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:46

These are avoidable accidents and are indictive of Schumacher's eagerness as opposed to his tyre strategies. Yes, qualifying back down has left him to mingle with less competent drivers but as we are solely discussing his TYRE strategy his collisions should not be considered.


Why not? Because the collision doesn't suit your percepton? I'm just showing you the stats.

#16809 Clark65

Clark65
  • New Member

  • 16 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:48

Brazil: 1:13.694 1:13.571 no time - qualified 10th race 15th
Japan: 1:33.748 1:32.116 no time - qualified 8th race 7th
Singapore: 1:48.819 1:46.043 no time - qualified 8th race retired collision

So, of the 3 times that he did not set a time in Q3, and in doing so, as you claimed to save a set of tyres for the race, he finished 1 spot above is grid slot, 5 places below, and once was involved in a collision. In other words 2 out of the 3 times, the saving tyres strategy failed to pay off.


OK, time for little logic to kick in.

Brazil - excellent choice, but as usual poor explanation.
Schumacher and Senna had contact in lap 10. Schumacher was 4 seconds behind Rosberg. Returning to pits with just 3 tyres on car resulted with gap to Rosberg being increased to 72 seconds. It is also important to highlight that Schumacher had 3 stop strategy and Rosberg had 2 stop strategy. Loss of another 20 seconds.
At the end of the race, gap was 51 seconds.
Realisticly, he could have finished in 5th or 6th position.

Japan - Schumacher finished 6th. It is not that important, but he was leading the race for couple of laps. Not bad for an old, mean Schumacher.

Singapore - in second and third stint, he was faster than Rosberg for around 1.5 second per lap.

#16810 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,858 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:52

Posts have been deleted.

I think it's time for a reminder that driver-name threads are for discussion of the driver in the title. That means someone can post 'Jerez '97' as much as another can post '7xWDC'. This thread is not for those who wish to sing praises only, and the tone of the discussion will be exactly what you choose to make it, so personal attacks are just going to create an unvirtuous circle of ill-mannered posts that make it very difficult to see who started it. A reasonably stated argument which is attacked by name calling is not the post that will get deleted.

If you do not like the fact that people can post negative comments here then the thread is not for you and we will not promote such threads here. If you don't agree with someone praising or criticising, then argue reasonably against it. If you think someone is just a broken record, add them to ignore or scroll on by. If someone is deliberately posting lies, half truths and does so in a manner clearly designed to irritate then report it and we can take action. If you attack it, you give it oxygen it doesn't deserve and attract attention to yourself and not them.

Most of all, do not attack the individual.

If you want to discuss this post of how this forum is moderated, do so via PM.

#16811 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:53

Yes I'm serious, he was behind his teammate and Perez at the time and had he possibly out qualified his teammate there may never have been an incident as he very well could have been ahead of him.

About Singapore, MS was fast, he was behind Perez because he have 1 stop more at that time. And he was 1-2 sec behind Nico(who was ahead of Rerez). Also getting into corners Saubers were slow, they were hit from behind not for the first time. Their old tyres didn't help too.


#16812 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:54

Why not? Because the collision doesn't suit your percepton? I'm just showing you the stats.

Because his collisions were avoidable. Singapore was avoidable, Brazil was avoidable. Is that no so?

Considering the answer to that question is yes, do you agree that if the collisions are avoidable it is more so the case of Schumacher being over-eager than his tyre strategy?

The premise to your argument is that his tyre strategy PUT him in that position but the reality is that it DID NOT cause the incidents. His eagerness, god knows what happened to Perez & Senna repeatedly bashing into him caused those incidents not saving tyres.

#16813 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • In the running for best OP of 2014

  • 3,520 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:56

I think its a fair point to suggest, as I have a couple of pages back, that starting down the grid makes a tangle with another car more likely.

One only has to look back through this thread to see how many times we have said 'I just hope he can avoid a collision with Petrov/Senna/Insert random midfielder here'. Even if all the collisions weren't his fault they still could have been avoided by simply not being in the presence of those cars, which in terms of race pace he shouldn't have been.

No one ever said in 2011 'this race will be ok as long as Michael avoids a collision with Mark Webber'.

I'll second this. JJ is right in saying that a collision with a midfielder/backmarker as a result of adopting a tyre-saving strategy is a direct consequence of that choice. If Schumacher doesn't want to have these problems next year, he'll need to improve his qualifying, full stop.

And for the sake of full disclosure, Schumacher was my first 'favourite' F1 driver and is probably still my favourite driver in the field (just ahead of Vettel and Button).

#16814 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2012 - 16:57

Singapore and Brazil are different. First was MS fault, second was Senna's. And he was punished.

#16815 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:04

I'll second this. JJ is right in saying that a collision with a midfielder/backmarker as a result of adopting a tyre-saving strategy is a direct consequence of that choice. If Schumacher doesn't want to have these problems next year, he'll need to improve his qualifying, full stop.

And for the sake of full disclosure, Schumacher was my first 'favourite' F1 driver and is probably still my favourite driver in the field (just ahead of Vettel and Button).

How can it be a "direct consequence" when they are avoidable accidents?

#16816 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:07

Singapore and Brazil are different. First was MS fault, second was Senna's. And he was punished.


Fair enough, but the point is that collisions like those are always more likely in the midfield, espicially for a guy like Michael who is quicker on race pace. And that has to be factored in when considering whether something is a 'good strategy'.

Besides which I'm still not convinced it was all strategy, the burning of extra sets to get through Q1 and the general gap to Nico in Q2 suggested to me that Michael was really struggling to get as much pace over the single lap than his team mate. Michaels long run pace was much, much better, but I still think there was something within his driving not allowing him to really get the car working properly over the hot laps.

#16817 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:08

which I'm still not convinced it was all strategy, the burning of extra sets to get through Q1 and the general gap to Nico in Q2 suggested to me that Michael was really struggling to get as much pace over the single lap than his team mate.

It's called comprising, it's a strategy.

#16818 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:08

How can it be a "direct consequence" when they are avoidable accidents?


Getting run over isn't a direct consequence of walking across the road with your eyes shut, but it does make it a lot more likely.

#16819 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:10

It's called comprising, it's a strategy.


Well thats fair enough, its just my opinion and my reasoning for it. For the reasons given above if it was a strategy - and maybe I'm wrong and it was - in my opinion it was flawed.

Advertisement

#16820 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:15

I think this year we will see if Qualy situation will stay the same.

#16821 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • In the running for best OP of 2014

  • 3,520 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 17:31

How can it be a "direct consequence" when they are avoidable accidents?

It's a direct consequence of the increased risk of collision that is inherent with starting closer to the back of the grid. Don't you think it's less likely he would've collided with those drivers if he had started closer to the front of the grid?

Bad wording on my part in the previous post, though--sorry. :well:

Getting run over isn't a direct consequence of walking across the road with your eyes shut, but it does make it a lot more likely.

:rotfl:

#16822 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 21:19

So it's the fault of the strategists that Schumacher ended up humping Perez and is it there fault also that he was so eager to pull off a move on Senna?

#16823 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 21:19

http://www.planet-f1...humacher-to-win

"I would like to think, before Michael retires for the second time, that he will win a Grand Prix - and, if he won a Grand Prix for Mercedes-Benz, what a celebration that would be. Michael Schumacher at the end of 2011 was doing a very, very good job. There are people in Formula 1 who are...let's describe them as 'ready to put the boot in'...some of them remember Michael when he was an active racing driver. It was difficult to make a comeback; he came into a team and a car that was not structured around him, he didn't have the benefit of all the goodies that he had at Ferrari like limitless testing and a tyre basically designed around his and the car's requirements. But also, there are a number of drivers like Sebastian Vettel and Lewis who he had never raced against; suddenly, he'd got these youngsters who don't give a damn about Michael Schumacher! It was difficult."

:D

#16824 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • In the running for best OP of 2014

  • 3,520 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 21:54

So it's the fault of the strategists that Schumacher ended up humping Perez and is it there fault also that he was so eager to pull off a move on Senna?

The incident with Perez was Schumi's fault, but the incident with B. Senna wasn't. Both incidents, however, could have possibly been avoided if he had started from a better grid position; in the end, I suppose it depends on how much control/influence Michael had over his race strategy.

EDIT: Just read the article by the way--I hope 2012 will be a rewarding year after the last two, as well. :D

Edited by Afterburner, 03 February 2012 - 21:55.


#16825 Schumacher7

Schumacher7
  • Member

  • 714 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 03 February 2012 - 22:10

The incident with Perez was Schumi's fault, but the incident with B. Senna wasn't. Both incidents, however, could have possibly been avoided if he had started from a better grid position; in the end, I suppose it depends on how much control/influence Michael had over his race strategy.

EDIT: Just read the article by the way--I hope 2012 will be a rewarding year after the last two, as well. :D

Could just as easily been avoided if Schumacher hadn't driven into the back of Perez and had left a bit more room on Senna, I think what he's saying is that just because he got a poor result doesn't mean the strategy was bad/wrong, they could have been very fruitful if a bit more care had been taken, the error was in Michael's driving not the strategy.

#16826 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,785 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 03 February 2012 - 23:49

or in Bruno's driving.

every incident can be avoided by both of the drivers. that doesn't mean they're both at fault

#16827 Schumacher7

Schumacher7
  • Member

  • 714 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 00:24

or in Bruno's driving.

every incident can be avoided by both of the drivers. that doesn't mean they're both at fault

If that's aimed at me then it's not relevant to what I said at all, I was saying a bad result does not indicate bad strategy, I wasn't saying whatever it is you're countering.

#16828 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 722 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 04 February 2012 - 01:08

I don't get why this crap about Schumacher getting custom made tyres keeps popping up every so often. I don't see anyone pointing out how Michelin was in bed with Renault in its last years in F1, and how they also enjoyed getting data from every other decent team on the grid except Ferrari. When Schumacher in his Benetton was dicing with Senna and Mansell in his 4th GP start in Spain '91 in wet conditions was that down to having custom tailored tyres?

#16829 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 February 2012 - 02:18

Welcome to my world; I am asking the same (or similar questions) since his Bennetton days when media took notice of him.

Edited by Sakae, 04 February 2012 - 02:21.


#16830 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 03:36

But, the thing is I neither like nor dislike Schumacher and I feel the same way towards the rest of the field. I respect them for what they do, I consider each to be sportsmen, but my days of hero worship died many long years ago when I saw far too many of my own heroes killed. I don't rate Schumacher in my top 5 because of his past actions and the fact that he never had a teammate capable of or allowed to challenge him. Nothing wrong with that, he built a dominating Ferrari team around him, and hat's off for that, but no, at the very top of my personal best list? No.

Irvine was a great driver, if you look what he done in Jordan. Same with Barrichello.

Brundle, Patrese were never considered bad drivers and Massa proved to be quite a good driver compared to Kimi previous to his accident.

Still, all of them were trashed by Schumacher. I wonder if you think Ferrari boycotted their cars?

Schumacher was usually a full second quicker than Brundle and Patrese and sometimes this would go even over 2 seconds in some tracks, qualifying-wise. In the Ferrari years, the cars were already getting too easy to drive and was harder to see very big gaps between team mates but still Schumacher was usually way quicker than Irvine and Barrichello and half second was normal gap between them.

Against Massa in 2006 there is a thing which might confuse some people because of different fuel loads in qualifying. Massa made pole in Turkey, Suzuka and Brazil, but that was because of less fuel(in Brazils's case Schumacher had problem for Q3) and in Q2 Schumacher beaten Massa by very big margins such as 1,2 seconds to Massa in Turkey's Q2, 0,9 seconds in Suzuka and a smaller margin of 3 tenths in Brazil. Just examples in places where Massa started ahead but still was slower ultimately.

Have Benetton and Ferrari always given different machineries to Schumacher's team mates?

Apart from that, I agree with you about Schumi's 2010/2011 qualifying jj2728. It's being poor most of the time and we can't use excuses of saving tires and etc. Schumacher should have done much better regardless of saving tires or not. Many times he had trouble to pass to Q3 and most of them he passed as 9/10th.

From my memory, only in Monaco, Canada, Valencia, Suzuka and Singapore that Schumacher passed Q2 easily.

Edited by Kubiccia, 04 February 2012 - 03:44.


#16831 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 04:09

Fair enough, but the point is that collisions like those are always more likely in the midfield, espicially for a guy like Michael who is quicker on race pace. And that has to be factored in when considering whether something is a 'good strategy'.

Besides which I'm still not convinced it was all strategy, the burning of extra sets to get through Q1 and the general gap to Nico in Q2 suggested to me that Michael was really struggling to get as much pace over the single lap than his team mate. Michaels long run pace was much, much better, but I still think there was something within his driving not allowing him to really get the car working properly over the hot laps.

perfect.

The lack of speed in qualifying is definitely not strategy related, or at least not exclusively. Only in the few tracks I mentioned in the previous post ist that Schumi passed through Q2 easily.

I think this year we will see if Qualy situation will stay the same.

It will probably gets worse as Schumi is 2 years older than when he returned which was already an advanced age for a racing driver.

I don't get why this crap about Schumacher getting custom made tyres keeps popping up every so often. I don't see anyone pointing out how Michelin was in bed with Renault in its last years in F1, and how they also enjoyed getting data from every other decent team on the grid except Ferrari. When Schumacher in his Benetton was dicing with Senna and Mansell in his 4th GP start in Spain '91 in wet conditions was that down to having custom tailored tyres?

Best post I read in quite some while. Schumacher's best drives were in Benetton, imo. There, he had no super car, no custom tires, no super engines and etc. It was pure skill.

The example you mentioned is epic, Schumacher and Senna both spun alone in the end of the race but that doesn't erase the fact that Schumacher was faster than all of them in some parts of that race and the gap between Mclaren and Williams to Benetton was ridiculous huge that year.

For those who never saw it, here you can see it with your own eyes:


As some additional info, Schumacher had very few mileage with F1 cars by that time but still qualified 1 second faster than his old team mate, 3 times WDC champion, 39 year's old Nelson Piquet.

#16832 steveninthematrix

steveninthematrix
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 04 February 2012 - 04:14

"the tallest tree catches the most wind"

91 wins, 7 WDC, i.e. more than the rest of the grid put together......

is Michael as good as he was in his early 30's, probably not........ is he good enough to be on the grid and do what he loves, which is compete? ask Mr Brawn and Mr Haug.

those who love to criticize and whine and act like experts, go ahead, demonstrate that you've never accomplished anything in life... all fine, to the rest of you, who doesn't want to see Michael get one podium at least this year? just hope with everyone testing immediately, Merc have something in their sleeves and can compete with Ferrari/Redbull/Mclaren

#16833 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 08:35

So you're basing your comments on a whim that Michael Schumacher - a 7 x WDC, the most extraordinary talent the sport has ever seen - was cheating because he was much faster than his team-mates? Okay then...

You know the last person who said something like this was Jos and we all know what's happened to him. :rotfl:

#16834 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 February 2012 - 09:58

I don't get why this crap about Schumacher getting custom made tyres keeps popping up every so often. I don't see anyone pointing out how Michelin was in bed with Renault in its last years in F1, and how they also enjoyed getting data from every other decent team on the grid except Ferrari. When Schumacher in his Benetton was dicing with Senna and Mansell in his 4th GP start in Spain '91 in wet conditions was that down to having custom tailored tyres?


Because Schumacher is the man they fear the most and was perceived as the biggest threat. They know he was head and shoulders above the rest in terms of talent; it would be quite silly to not acknowledge this as they would in effect have been calling the vast majority of neutral observers idiots, so they switched to plan B.  ;)

If you really believed a driver was\is not as good as he's made out to be, it'd make more sense to let their career do the talking and turn a blind eye if you really disliked them, instead of spending more time discussing said driver than your own idol. :lol:

#16835 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:26

My personal opinion on why a lot of people doesn't rate Michael Schumacher as the best in F1:s history.

1. Michael Schumacher is a great driver but a driver more related to Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and Alain Prost. It's teambuilding and smartness. It's not Clark and Senna. I am not saying Clark and Senna is necessarily better I just say it is different so people think differently depending on what they want.

2. The Ferrari dominance. When Michael Schumacher won his titles from 2000-2004 making it a total of 7 world titles. How much was the driving ability and how much was getting the Ferrari to be so superior? Does anybody care about 7 titles in an age where a driver can go on for 20 years where in the old days drivers were lucky if they survived 5-6 seasons?

3. The number one status. Let Michael through for the championship. OK - so it wasn't that many times but there were a couple of ridiculous moments.

You can rate Michael Schumacher differently depending on how you look at F1, what you want from F1 and what you want in a F1 driver. If you look at the combination car and driver then he and Ferrari was the most dominating and best force we have seen. But that people think differently and have the right to think differently is natural.


#16836 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 February 2012 - 10:30

Because Schumacher is the man they fear the most and was perceived as the biggest threat. They know he was head and shoulders above the rest in terms of talent...


This is really far from the truth. I don't think Nico is worried about Schumacher.

Edited by FenderJaguar, 04 February 2012 - 10:30.


#16837 BRK

BRK
  • Member

  • 3,474 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 04 February 2012 - 11:22


This is really far from the truth. I don't think Nico is worried about Schumacher.


I don't see how that us relevant to what I posted. Nico Rosberg is not worried about a 43-year old Schumacher in his second career...and?


As for Clark, I believe it was Surtees that had this to say about him: "“Jimmy was not a mixer – he didn’t like to mix it – and if he didn’t feel he had a slight edge somewhere I feel he got very agitated. I don’t agree with the general view that he was invariably a tiger."

Clark's mechanic Cedric Selzer also seems to agree with that opinion, there's an article about the interview in last month's autosport, I think. Clark won his titles in the best cars in the field and with teammates that were far from being considered great.

Now why must I consider a driver who had his most success starting from the front in pole in the best cars, was apparently insecure about heading into a race without an edge over his competitors, whose reputation as a great fighter -if Surtees is to be believed- a myth, and who was better at blasting away from the front without having to get involved in wheel to wheel battles unlike Schumacher -a great? You're always going to have people that believe a truly great and proper racing driver must also be good at racing (pop into the Sebastian Vettel thread for a taster :lol:) , not just streaking away from the front in a quick car.

Therefore, by your logic, Clark was really rubbish and not a complete racing driver. You could apply the same flawed logic to Senna's career and draw the same conclusions. Stewart didn't include Senna in his list of greats as in his opinion he crashed way too often, I'm sure there are people that could and would take this to the extreme and argue he was never really a great.

There's dirt to be found if you look hard enough. Thankfully these are, as I said earlier, only the opinions of a very small minority whom nobody pays much attention to. :yawnface:


#16838 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:02

This is really far from the truth. I don't think Nico is worried about Schumacher.


So you honestly think Michael in 2011 has lost no speed or ability compared to 1995? Really?

#16839 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 04 February 2012 - 12:11

Ah people - you know what I mean. Probably.

Advertisement

#16840 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,799 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 February 2012 - 13:18

Irvine was a great driver, if you look what he done in Jordan. Same with Barrichello.

Brundle, Patrese were never considered bad drivers and Massa proved to be quite a good driver compared to Kimi previous to his accident.

Still, all of them were trashed by Schumacher. I wonder if you think Ferrari boycotted their cars?


All of the above drivers were good, but never great. And of course I don't think that Ferrari boycotted their cars, but Schumacher clearly had number 1 status and when that number one status came into play, using Austria 2002 as an example, well we all know what happened.

#16841 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 13:26

Jesus Christ, I supposed his No.1 status really helped him out in the US, Italy, Hungarian & European GP. He finished less .5 second behind him in each race, setting fast laps in the closing stages as a clear statement, please for God's sake, don't bring up Austria again when Schumacher gifted him 4 wins in the same season.

#16842 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,799 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 February 2012 - 13:34

As for Clark, I believe it was Surtees that had this to say about him: "“Jimmy was not a mixer – he didn’t like to mix it – and if he didn’t feel he had a slight edge somewhere I feel he got very agitated. I don’t agree with the general view that he was invariably a tiger."
Clark's mechanic Cedric Selzer also seems to agree with that opinion, there's an article about the interview in last month's autosport, I think. Clark won his titles in the best cars in the field and with teammates that were far from being considered great.
Now why must I consider a driver who had his most success starting from the front in pole in the best cars, was apparently insecure about heading into a race without an edge over his competitors, whose reputation as a great fighter -if Surtees is to be believed- a myth, and who was better at blasting away from the front without having to get involved in wheel to wheel battles unlike Schumacher -a great? You're always going to have people that believe a truly great and proper racing driver must also be good at racing (pop into the Sebastian Vettel thread for a taster :lol:) , not just streaking away from the front in a quick car.


With regards to Clark being a fighter, witness Monza 1967. Witness the fact that he hated Spa, where he'd seen 2 of his friends, one of them a teammate, killed during the 1960 Belgian GP and another, Moss, seriously injured, yet he won there 4 times. He was competitive and a winner in many forms of motorsport. He won the Indy 500, he competed in NASCAR, sports cars, touring cars. In 1963 and 1965 he probably had the best car, and knowing Colin Chapman's propensity for pushing the envelope the most fragile, but Schumacher too had years in which his Ferrari was clearly the most dominate.

#16843 rolf123

rolf123
  • Member

  • 2,332 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 February 2012 - 13:36

Don't forget that in the days of Schumi and Rubens at Ferrari, tyres were allocated to a team and not a driver. Ferrari would assign Barichello to gather the bulk of the tyre data in practise and leave Schumi with the best rubber options for the race. That's a simple fact.

#16844 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,799 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 04 February 2012 - 13:45

Jesus Christ, I supposed his No.1 status really helped him out in the US, Italy, Hungarian & European GP. He finished less .5 second behind him in each race, setting fast laps in the closing stages as a clear statement, please for God's sake, don't bring up Austria again when Schumacher gifted him 4 wins in the same season.


Number one status did not matter by the time they got to those races as he already had the championship wrapped up by France. The USGP was a fiasco anyhow.

#16845 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 14:00

Number one status did not matter by the time they got to those races as he already had the championship wrapped up by France. The USGP was a fiasco anyhow.

So why it bring it up if it did not matter to Barrichello, trailing by 50 points, who was already out of the title race? Quite clear your post had an underlying message

Did he No.1 status? Yes
Did he deserve No.1 status? Yes, he was faster and more consistent than Barrichello with the same equipment
Was he right to exercise his No.1 status? Yes, considering he had to consolidate his 1st place in the Championship race & Barrichello was all but out.
Was he a good sport when he repaid Barrichello four-fold by gifting him wins in Italy, USA, Hungary & Germany? Very much so.

#16846 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 February 2012 - 15:05

Don't forget that in the days of Schumi and Rubens at Ferrari, tyres were allocated to a team and not a driver. Ferrari would assign Barichello to gather the bulk of the tyre data in practise and leave Schumi with the best rubber options for the race. That's a simple fact.

Not that it matters much one way or another, but just from curiosity, how do you know this to state it as a fact? I am Michael's big fan, however this tire allocation story is news to me.

#16847 Poep

Poep
  • Member

  • 85 posts
  • Joined: December 10

Posted 04 February 2012 - 15:42

Michael Schumacher is the best driver of all time :kiss:

#16848 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 February 2012 - 16:23

Michael Schumacher is the best driver of all time :kiss:

We know. :wave:


#16849 hammibal

hammibal
  • Member

  • 1,857 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 19:30

Irvine was a great driver, if you look what he done in Jordan. Same with Barrichello.

Brundle, Patrese were never considered bad drivers and Massa proved to be quite a good driver compared to Kimi previous to his accident.

Still, all of them were trashed by Schumacher. I wonder if you think Ferrari boycotted their cars?

Schumacher was usually a full second quicker than Brundle and Patrese and sometimes this would go even over 2 seconds in some tracks, qualifying-wise. In the Ferrari years, the cars were already getting too easy to drive and was harder to see very big gaps between team mates but still Schumacher was usually way quicker than Irvine and Barrichello and half second was normal gap between them.

Against Massa in 2006 there is a thing which might confuse some people because of different fuel loads in qualifying. Massa made pole in Turkey, Suzuka and Brazil, but that was because of less fuel(in Brazils's case Schumacher had problem for Q3) and in Q2 Schumacher beaten Massa by very big margins such as 1,2 seconds to Massa in Turkey's Q2, 0,9 seconds in Suzuka and a smaller margin of 3 tenths in Brazil. Just examples in places where Massa started ahead but still was slower ultimately.

Have Benetton and Ferrari always given different machineries to Schumacher's team mates?

Apart from that, I agree with you about Schumi's 2010/2011 qualifying jj2728. It's being poor most of the time and we can't use excuses of saving tires and etc. Schumacher should have done much better regardless of saving tires or not. Many times he had trouble to pass to Q3 and most of them he passed as 9/10th.

From my memory, only in Monaco, Canada, Valencia, Suzuka and Singapore that Schumacher passed Q2 easily.

Most of the post is good but you overate some of the drivers, Irvine left Ferrari to join the new Jaguar team but was unable to upstage an inexperienced Pedro de la Rosa, Brundle got similarly hammered by Hakkinen, Patrese got similarly hammered by Mansell, and of course Massa is getting easily beaten by Alonso. His two strongest teammates i would say were Piquet and Barrichello, Barrichello i would say was about 2 to 3 tenths slower than Schumacher, but he then went onto get beaten by Button when it mattered, and an ageing Piquet was probably past his best.

However i cant deny that post Senna Schumacher was the best but maybe the competition wasnt the best.

#16850 Kubiccia

Kubiccia
  • Member

  • 1,370 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 February 2012 - 21:59

Most of the post is good but you overate some of the drivers, Irvine left Ferrari to join the new Jaguar team but was unable to upstage an inexperienced Pedro de la Rosa, Brundle got similarly hammered by Hakkinen, Patrese got similarly hammered by Mansell, and of course Massa is getting easily beaten by Alonso. His two strongest teammates i would say were Piquet and Barrichello, Barrichello i would say was about 2 to 3 tenths slower than Schumacher, but he then went onto get beaten by Button when it mattered, and an ageing Piquet was probably past his best.

However i cant deny that post Senna Schumacher was the best but maybe the competition wasnt the best.


I'm not sure about the actual figures of HakkinenVS Brundle but eventhough Mika beaten Martin very often, I think the gap was not as big as in SchumacherXBrundle case. Regarding Patrese, yes he was beaten the same by Mansell with the enormous gaps but only in 92 where some people says Nigel had more strengh in the arm to cope with the active suspension car or whatever it was. Anyway, in 91, Patrese beaten Mansell most of the times in qualifying and even got some pole positions. About Massa, it's true that Alonso is proving to be much better as Schumi did. Speaking now about Barrichello, the average gap might be on the 3 tenths region but often in "driver's track" such as Spa, Suzuka, Monaco, Schumacher would be like 1 second faster than Rubens, and this is something nobody else ever managed to do with Rubens, not even Button.

Finally about Piquet, yeah he was old and even mentioned that very explicitely to show some people here, who think age doesn't affect, that we never saw aged drivers demonstrate speed.