Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#2001 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,388 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 18 May 2010 - 23:07

Ukyo Katayama interviews Michael (the interview is in English):



Sounds like he is expecting to be around in 2011 then.

Advertisement

#2002 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,542 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 18 May 2010 - 23:42

His record from 1991-93 was abysmal. In the 38 races against Prost and Senna, he won 2 times had no poles and no WDC. 2 wins from his 91 wins were against Prost and Senna, wow what a record. He built up his hollow stats in the May 1994-2004 clown years against grandad Hill, Villeneuve and coulthard.



The cars weren't as nearly as good as Williams and McLaren....




#2003 Paul Prost

Paul Prost
  • Member

  • 745 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 00:00

There is no doubt that Michael Schumacher raced in one of the most uncompetitive eras in Formula 1 (especially between 2000-2006).

However to deny that he doesn't belong in the 'Pantheon' of F1 is slightly silly. Like all great champions he had his strengths and weaknesses.

#2004 eoin

eoin
  • Member

  • 5,010 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 19 May 2010 - 00:06

Ukyo Katayama interviews Michael (the interview is in English):


Thanks for that. The answer to the first question is quite interesting(even though I don't think that is what the interviewer asked!). He still doesn't believe that he is at best and he is not sure he can get back to his peak but that is what he wants to find out.

#2005 917k

917k
  • Member

  • 2,586 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 19 May 2010 - 00:09

There is no doubt that Michael Schumacher raced in one of the most uncompetitive eras in Formula 1 (especially between 2000-2006).

However to deny that he doesn't belong in the 'Pantheon' of F1 is slightly silly. Like all great champions he had his strengths and weaknesses.



Check your F1 and Grand Prix history, there has been lots of so-called 'uncompetitive eras'. Certain drivers [Like Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Andretti, Mansell etc.] have all benefited from cars far better than their rivals. Just a fact.

#2006 Paul Prost

Paul Prost
  • Member

  • 745 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 01:00

Check your F1 and Grand Prix history, there has been lots of so-called 'uncompetitive eras'. Certain drivers [Like Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Andretti, Mansell etc.] have all benefited from cars far better than their rivals. Just a fact.

Take Mansell as an example. He raced against Rosberg, Prost, Piquet (as team-mates!)... plus he had to contend with Senna, Schumacher and Hill. Additionally, for a lot of his career Mansell only had a 50% chance of finishing the race due to mechanical reliability.

For the last part of his career (not including the comeback) Schumacher had over 90% reliability. For a couple of seasons there was only one or two other ex-champions on the grid. Occasionally, Schumacher was the only world champion on the track.

Mansell had one year where he had the fastest car on the grid and #1 status in the team, 1992. In 1986, 1987 and parts of 1990 he also had the fastest car, but he had to beat his teammates (Piquet and Prost) first.

How many different drivers and teams won races from 2000-2009? Compared to 1990-1999? Or 1980-1989?

I'll leave it to other posters to talk about Fangio w.r.t Ascari, Moss, Hawthorn et al, or Clark, Stewart, Hill, Brabham etc.

NOTE : I'm not a Schumacher hater. I'm just pointing out that due to his talent, good fortune and the lack of talent from opposing teams and drivers...he managed to drive in an era that was one of the least competitive in Formula 1 history.

#2007 Spa One

Spa One
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 02:00

Take Mansell as an example. He raced against Rosberg, Prost, Piquet (as team-mates!)... plus he had to contend with Senna, Schumacher and Hill. Additionally, for a lot of his career Mansell only had a 50% chance of finishing the race due to mechanical reliability.

For the last part of his career (not including the comeback) Schumacher had over 90% reliability. For a couple of seasons there was only one or two other ex-champions on the grid. Occasionally, Schumacher was the only world champion on the track.

Mansell had one year where he had the fastest car on the grid and #1 status in the team, 1992. In 1986, 1987 and parts of 1990 he also had the fastest car, but he had to beat his teammates (Piquet and Prost) first.

How many different drivers and teams won races from 2000-2009? Compared to 1990-1999? Or 1980-1989?

I'll leave it to other posters to talk about Fangio w.r.t Ascari, Moss, Hawthorn et al, or Clark, Stewart, Hill, Brabham etc.

NOTE : I'm not a Schumacher hater. I'm just pointing out that due to his talent, good fortune and the lack of talent from opposing teams and drivers...he managed to drive in an era that was one of the least competitive in Formula 1 history.


Your comparison here is too simplified. All cars were less reliable in Mansels era compared to Schumachers.

Schumacher was lucky to have sound reliability throughout the 00s, but you cant say that Mansel was at a 40% dissadvantage to Schumacher because you have to rate reliability in proportion to those raced against at the time.



#2008 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 02:03

@ Paul

Fair enough, but one must also consider that the reason there weren't many champions/ winners to race against Michael was because he beat the pants off everybody and hoarded all those championships/ race wins. If MS hadn't been there, we could well consider the same era as very competitive.

Edited by Craven Morehead, 19 May 2010 - 02:03.


#2009 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 02:29

@ Paul

Fair enough, but one must also consider that the reason there weren't many champions/ winners to race against Michael was because he beat the pants off everybody and hoarded all those championships/ race wins. If MS hadn't been there, we could well consider the same era as very competitive.


Yup.

Paul, are you serious to consider that for 12 years the handful that made it of thousands of racing car drivers who aspired to be in F1 were all average?

How about you start picking any of those drivers at random, even the midfielders and check out their racing careers that got them to an F1 drive.....

Most you will find go like this..

Started as a kid racing
Local champion
State Champion
National Champion
International victories in various Formula series
Formula 1

Do you rate Jos Verstappen? Many wouldn't, no better than a mid fielder many would say but here is his stunning resume the same as almost every other driver that gets them to F1 ......

Verstappen began karting at the age of 8, and was participating in national competitions not long after. In 1984 he became Dutch junior champion. He remained successful, and won two European titles and a large number of international races in 1989.
At the end of 1991 he made the transition to car racing. He drove in Formula Opel Lotus, a class in which identical cars compete against each other. He won the European championship in his first year, and got an offer to drive in Formula Three with Van Amersfoort Racing, who also developed other drivers such as Christijan Albers, Tom Coronel and Bas Leinders. During that European winter season, he raced in New Zealand Formula Atlantic. Subsequently, in German Formula Three, he won several international competitions, including the 1993 Marlboro Masters and the German Formula 3 championship.


These are the people that Schumacher beat for 12 years or so, all of them. A 12 year era of bad drivers? - you are insane.

Not only that but compared to previous eras the drivers are even better atheletes both physically and mentally - Like any modern sports the back runners today in F1 are as good as the front runners were 20 years ago.



Today not a single driver could win on Keke Rosberg's 'fitness program'....

Posted Image





#2010 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 19 May 2010 - 03:31

There are only a few arguments used to discredit Schumacher's career and achievements by posters on this bulletin board. Nothing new has come of the arguments over the years, and yet certain serial-haters must be under the impression that if you hit people over the head with such "logic" over and over, eventually somehow you will win the argument through stubborn persistence. FAT CHANCE.

Interestingly, Schumacher's peers rate him as the 2nd best driver of all time, which is certainly not shabby. They may know a thing or three about relative abilities of the various drivers over the last few decades, but even if they are employing educated guesses, their view certainly packs more weight than your average poster's.

So, my question to all you doubters: How do you reconcile the disparity between your view, and those of the much better informed??


Cooper

#2011 Messi10

Messi10
  • Member

  • 885 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 04:05

...and Alonso was rated 9th but I can assure you that many people still doubt that he is better than other drivers who were rated lower by their peers such as Emmo, Piquet, Lewis, Mikka, Mansell, GV. .. ... how is that possible ???? :stoned:

What this comes down to is personal opinion.

Edited by Messi10, 19 May 2010 - 04:29.


#2012 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 04:07

His record from 1991-93 was abysmal. In the 38 races against Prost and Senna, he won 2 times had no poles and no WDC. 2 wins from his 91 wins were against Prost and Senna, wow what a record. He built up his hollow stats in the May 1994-2004 clown years against grandad Hill, Villeneuve and coulthard.


Kenaltgr? (oops got to be careful, almost spelt your name with a C, darn English)

1992 3rd behind the 2 Williams F14B's, one the greatest F1 car's of all time? Which motor did MS have and which motor did Senna have again .... Hmmm I also forgot what happened at Spa that year in the rain....

1993 4th this time, again the Williams, so good Senna wanted to drive it for free, many retirements and now lets compare the 7 race tally that Senna and MS finished together..

MS 5
Senna 2

Abysmal? God I can only wish I could ever be that bad.


#2013 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 04:12

His record from 1991-93 was abysmal. In the 38 races against Prost and Senna, he won 2 times had no poles and no WDC. 2 wins from his 91 wins were against Prost and Senna, wow what a record. He built up his hollow stats in the May 1994-2004 clown years against grandad Hill, Villeneuve and coulthard.


And that is the problem with posting stats. I'm guessing you didn't watch those years, because if you had, you'd know that everybody in the padock recognized that a new star had arrived.

#2014 DaleCooper

DaleCooper
  • Member

  • 2,512 posts
  • Joined: October 03

Posted 19 May 2010 - 04:31

...and Alonso was rated 9th but I can assure you that many people still doubt that he is better than other drivers who were rated lower by their peers such as Emmo, Piquet, Lewis, Mikka, Mansell, GV. .. ... how is that possible ???? :stoned:

What this comes down to is personal opinion.



I think it's pretty clear that most opinions are not created equal. There are those that matter, of peers with intimate knowledge, and those that are somewhat irrelevant, of armchair observers who live out emotional fantasies through the success/failure of their chosen one.

I asked for a reconciliation, not a sidestep question to my question.


Cooper

#2015 Messi10

Messi10
  • Member

  • 885 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 04:48

I think it's pretty clear that most opinions are not created equal. There are those that matter, of peers with intimate knowledge, and those that are somewhat irrelevant, of armchair observers who live out emotional fantasies through the success/failure of their chosen one.

I asked for a reconciliation, not a sidestep question to my question.


Cooper


If you agree that the results of this poll is the ultimate voice of wisdom then you must agree with all the other ratings and not just 2nd place. Is that correct?..

#2016 fastlegs

fastlegs
  • Member

  • 1,956 posts
  • Joined: April 02

Posted 19 May 2010 - 04:59

His record from 1991-93 was abysmal. In the 38 races against Prost and Senna, he won 2 times had no poles and no WDC. 2 wins from his 91 wins were against Prost and Senna, wow what a record. He built up his hollow stats in the May 1994-2004 clown years against grandad Hill, Villeneuve and coulthard.


You're joking, right? :drunk:

#2017 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,967 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 19 May 2010 - 11:15

Prost will join Schumacher at race of champions this year,
what's that, 11 championships between them.

Cool :up:



#2018 steveninthematrix

steveninthematrix
  • Member

  • 329 posts
  • Joined: May 08

Posted 19 May 2010 - 11:23

the tallest tree catches the most wind,











and Michael Schumacher is the tallest tree.


if you love to hate him, that is fine....

do we not recall who won the first three races of 1994? did you watch those races?

did you watch michael put the 7up on 7th on the grid?

did you watch spain 96? or the quali in monaco 96? or hungary 98? heck... did u watch china and brazil 2006?

everyone RAVES about Senna... but Senna was beaten by Prost, and then won a championship in the Mclaren by crashing into Prost, when he said the previous day he was going too? and no ways was the Ferrari a better car than the McLaren that year...

Senna, for raw speed, #1 or #2, but as an overall racer, strategy, consistency, nursing a car home, i have Michael and Prost ahead of him...

yes, the Mclaren sucked this year... but its still great to watch

prost vs senna vs michael at silverstone


Edited by steveninthematrix, 19 May 2010 - 11:26.


#2019 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 11:27

And that is the problem with posting stats. I'm guessing you didn't watch those years, because if you had, you'd know that everybody in the padock recognized that a new star had arrived.


He was quite something in those early years ---- pity the latter years took the shine off.

Advertisement

#2020 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:04

He was quite something in those early years ---- pity the latter years took the shine off.


You mean the next 80+ races he won or the 7 WDC's he gained after those "early years"?

How about that year he became the only GP driver in history to finish in 1st, 2nd or 3rd and stand on the podium for the whole year? What about that season he won more races again than any other driver in GP history?

All those Poles? All those Fastest laps? All those great wheel to wheels with anyone who bought it on?

Yup, guess your right, no shine there.

#2021 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:12

Of course Schumacher was great. Maybe still is.
But he also enjoyed a superteam during the years from 2000-2004 and 7 titles are maybe 2 too many.
You have to at least consider those circumstances and put everyting in a perspective.

Edited by FenderJaguar, 19 May 2010 - 14:13.


#2022 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:15

Of course Schumacher was great. Maybe still is.
But he also enjoyed a superteam during the years from 2000-2004 and 7 titles are maybe 2 too many.
You have to at least consider those circumstances and put everyting in a perspective.

But in that you are ignoring the influence Schumacher had on that team being the superteam it was. On top of being an immensely fast driver, that is what makes him the superstar he is, the most complete driver there probably ever was.

#2023 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:16

That super team and super car did not come out of nowhere in one night. Everyone, Schumacher included, contributed to that several years in a row.

#2024 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:22

Well, the superteam looked even better since the other big teams made fools of themselves. And then 2003 the FIA helped Ferrari to the title. Just saying. Ferrari was good in 97, 98 and 99 as well - 7 titles are 7 titles but in another era he might just have had time for 2 titles before his 99 crash...just saying.

#2025 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,967 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:24

Of course Schumacher was great. Maybe still is.
But he also enjoyed a superteam during the years from 2000-2004 and 7 titles are maybe 2 too many.
You have to at least consider those circumstances and put everyting in a perspective.



Yep but when he left benetton for ferrari-a broken team in 1996, Schumacher effectively gave up titles to Hill definately-who actually admitted he was lucky Schuey went ferrari that year, MS made 96/97/98/99/2000 more difficult for himself, but then he was rewarded in 2000/2001/2002/2003/2004, and LETS GET THIS STRAIGHT,.2000 was not a straight forward year, ferrari had issues on tyre wear consistency against mclaren in 2000, only until Monza did it seemed more equal, mclaren won f1 racing's car of the year award that year, DC had the upperhand on Hakkinen at Monaco and France, Mika wasn't totally on it in some races.

2003 THE FIA screw ferrari and MS, basically rules to slow down and trip up top team and driver, qualifying session-2 sessions, 1st one lap, championship leader out first, on green track less grip, sounds fair? way to contest sporting championship? Yet he still won. It wasn't a straight forward year. 2001/2002/2004 were dominant seasons, I wouldn't put 2000 and 2003 as straight forward seasons which some easily do.

MS deserved 2002/2004 given the titles he gave up joining ferrari in the beginning in 1996/97/98 and don't punish him for his broken leg in 1999, that was a tough ferrari jouirney before people expected high standards from them, they were a superteam, because he decided to go there and stay loyal and got awarded for it/ So his titles were not too many, he balanced it out, given the fighting he did between 96/2000, the fact that he got into championship contention in 97/98 and almost won those seasons is down to alot of fine driving and perhaps jacques not maxmising his consistency as well in 1997, Jacques should of wrapped up the title in 97 before jerez, that John Barnard ferrari wasn't all that. It seemed ferrari was playing catch up with williams and mclarens, but come rain races and strategy efficent flanker drives, Michael took those opportunities to help his team move forward until the car improved itself little by little, but playing catch up, while others didn't need too.

Edited by SeanValen, 19 May 2010 - 14:27.


#2026 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:25

Well, the superteam looked even better since the other big teams made fools of themselves. And then 2003 the FIA helped Ferrari to the title. Just saying. Ferrari was good in 97, 98 and 99 as well - 7 titles are 7 titles but in another era he might just have had time for 2 titles before his 99 crash...just saying.

Surely you must mean in 2003 the FIA helped others to a shot at the title.

#2027 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:26

Surely you must mean in 2003 the FIA helped others to a shot at the title.

Absolutely.
As well as in 2005.

Edited by Dragonfly, 19 May 2010 - 14:26.


#2028 SeanValen

SeanValen
  • Member

  • 16,967 posts
  • Joined: February 01

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:29

Surely you must mean in 2003 the FIA helped others to a shot at the title.


Even Max Mosely said Schuey would of been robbed if he lost out at Japan 2003. The one lap quali with rain effected sessions in a championship showdown, a driver's worse fear, I remember doing a thread on it, didn't thing it would almost happen to Michael. The FIA man himself admitting the rules were unfair, how bad is that.

#2029 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:32

No I mean that the FIA helped Ferrari in 2003 - from Monza and onwards. Michelins anyone? Some strange decisions at Indy against Montoya - well that is not important. But the Michelin teams really suffered from Monza and onwards.

#2030 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:36

No I mean that the FIA helped Ferrari in 2003 - from Monza and onwards. Michelins anyone? Some strange decisions at Indy against Montoya - well that is not important. But the Michelin teams really suffered from Monza and onwards.

At the end of 2002 FIA went to all kinds of trouble and rule changes to stop Ferrari's dominance.

FIA only changed the moment of inspection of the tyres, Michelins fault if they were exceeding the limits. And also Montoya and Michelin themself said there was no change in the tyres from Monza onward.

#2031 Hacklerf

Hacklerf
  • Member

  • 2,333 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 14:53

Even Max Mosely said Schuey would of been robbed if he lost out at Japan 2003. The one lap quali with rain effected sessions in a championship showdown, a driver's worse fear, I remember doing a thread on it, didn't thing it would almost happen to Michael. The FIA man himself admitting the rules were unfair, how bad is that.


I rememebr this it was scary, a nightmare it could have been but lucky history can look back and see Michael as champion, a championship well deserved :)

#2032 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 May 2010 - 15:06

I find that the tree metaphor is great: the tallest tree gets the strongest wind.

But it really is impossible to ignore the superlative performance of Schumacher. Only out of pure hatred may one say that he was not one of the very few drivers who were head and shoulders above the rest.

It is very improbable (statistically) that all the other drivers were crap during Schumacher's domination. More probably, he made them look crap.

Please note that I never liked Schumacher. But I acknowledge that he really was one of the truly greats, the others being Fangio, Clark, and Senna; as I rate both Clark and Senna under Fangio, I would say that the two real great drivers of F1 were Fangio and Schumacher.

But then I am no longer a child and I really don't need to like a driver to appreciate his capacity.

Edited by RSNS, 19 May 2010 - 15:06.


#2033 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 19 May 2010 - 15:20

No I mean that the FIA helped Ferrari in 2003 - from Monza and onwards. Michelins anyone? Some strange decisions at Indy against Montoya - well that is not important. But the Michelin teams really suffered from Monza and onwards.


Michy's were illegal - they had to change.

There has been a number of cases against Ferrari as well - mass damper anyone? etc....


#2034 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 16:39

everyone RAVES about Senna... but Senna was beaten by Prost, and then won a championship in the Mclaren by crashing into Prost,


This is OT but..

Actually Senna came into Prost's team and beat him outright (not the other way round as you say), the following year Prost won the championship by crashing into Senna (as he had said he would beforehand) and ran off to Ferrari. Senna returned the favour the following year.

#2035 Craven Morehead

Craven Morehead
  • Member

  • 4,577 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 16:43

Sounds like he is expecting to be around in 2011 then.


:up: totally enjoyed that. Thanx

#2036 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 19:00

Next target- beating Ferrari and McLaren in Turkey. :) Michael is seeing red now.

Edited by ivand911, 19 May 2010 - 19:01.


#2037 Szoelloe

Szoelloe
  • Member

  • 5,755 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 19 May 2010 - 19:12

Next target- beating Ferrari and McLaren in Turkey. :) Michael is seeing red now.


So he does. At least I sure hope so. He certainly has some plus motivation now. :lol:

Edited by Szoelloe, 19 May 2010 - 19:13.


#2038 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 19:14

Next target- beating Ferrari and McLaren in Turkey. :) Michael is seeing red now.

Dont see it happening to be honest, not without the Ferrari/Mclaren drivers making mistakes. He's going to be scrapping for 6th/7th place again unfortunately. Does Mercedes have any big updates in the pipeline for Turkey ? Maybe that could change things

#2039 merschu

merschu
  • Member

  • 520 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 19 May 2010 - 19:35

This is OT but..

Actually Senna came into Prost's team and beat him outright (not the other way round as you say), the following year Prost won the championship by crashing into Senna (as he had said he would beforehand) and ran off to Ferrari. Senna returned the favour the following year.


Imagine if any of the current driver said he would do something like that beforehead and actually did that! FIA would probably ban him from motor-racing! :p

Advertisement

#2040 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 19 May 2010 - 19:36

F-duct is coming in Turkey.

#2041 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,202 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 19 May 2010 - 20:54

Imagine if any of the current driver said he would do something like that beforehead and actually did that! FIA would probably ban him from motor-racing! :p


Imagine not just any driver, but Schumacher doing this!

The results would be multiple threads going into the 10.000s here on Atlas BB! :lol:
The mods would have a field day!

And this was just 20 years ago - how much the world has become politically correct...


#2042 MikeTekRacing

MikeTekRacing
  • Member

  • 5,786 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 19 May 2010 - 21:06

Some strange decisions at Indy against Montoya

what? :)

#2043 Zdeus

Zdeus
  • Member

  • 309 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 20 May 2010 - 03:16

I'm amazed at how much one thrives on pulling drivers down than being positive about any driver... :down:

#2044 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,215 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 20 May 2010 - 05:58

The detractors of Schumacher really are just jealous and they have a good reason to be:

Here's a guy who has achieved everything one can achieve in his field and now, at the age of 41, can afford to do what he likes the most just for fun, without much pressure. On top of that he has a happy and balanced private life, a loving wife, two children, he has confidence, he has natural authority, he has intelligence. Basically he has everything. I can see why some people feel jealous looking at all that and are so desperate to put his achievements down.

Thing is, he probably couldn't care less. You just look at his interviews and you can see and feel he has a lot of fun. And it's great to see. That's why he came back and good for him! People who say he should stay home to nurture his reputation are trapped into this media craziness about reputations and statistics and all that. What about fun? We only live once and if this is what makes him happy then he should do this. He is a lucky guy that he still can do what he likes the most. Whether he is as good as he used to be is secondary. He can afford it to be secondary now, because he has done it all before. But I can see how and why that makes some people jealous.

Edited by Galko877, 20 May 2010 - 06:00.


#2045 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 20 May 2010 - 06:04

No I mean that the FIA helped Ferrari in 2003 - from Monza and onwards. Michelins anyone? ... But the Michelin teams really suffered from Monza and onwards.


Michelin didn't change their tyres in 2003, this is a myth that seems to live on because of the giant moan the Michelin teams did in unison; about nothing!

#2046 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:08

The Michelin raced a tyre that made them win race after race and then FIA stepped in and changed the way the tire was measured from Monza and Michelin didn't win again. Michelin did change their tyre for Monza.

Maybe the one they raced before in the season wasn't legal - it got a little wider when you raced it - but until that point it was accepted.

The point is that it was legal for a long time and FIA made a decision which worked against the Michelin teams.

There are lots of these things - nothing new - nothing that won't happen again. I am just pointing out some strange decisions and it amazes me to see the lack of knowledge and short memory that some of you have.


Edit: I mean - I can appreciate Michael Schumacher a lot - that doesn't mean I have to turn my back on everything that has worked for him in winning some of his championships. It doesn't rule out that I can get my facts together and actually KNOW a lot about past seasons.

Edited by FenderJaguar, 20 May 2010 - 08:13.


#2047 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 1,932 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:12

The Michelin raced a tyre that made them win race after race and then FIA stepped in and changed the way the tire was measured from Monza and Michelin didn't win again. Michelin did change their tyre for Monza.

Maybe the one they raced before in the season wasn't legal - it got a little wider when you raced it - but until that point it was accepted.

The point is that it was legal for a long time and FIA made a decision which worked against the Michelin teams.

There are lots of these things - nothing new - nothing that won't happen again. I am just pointing out some strange decisions and it amazes me to see the lack of knowledge and short memory that some of you have.

Last thing I'll say about this - as it is becoming OT and there is a complete thread about this.

The rules dictated a maximum thread width at all times. The FIA didn't change the method of measuring, they added an extra measuring moment. Michelin was illegal. Same thing happens when any team finds out another team is breaking the rules.

If you are driving 100 on a road that allows only 50, and at the end of the road there's a measuring point by the police so you slow down to 50 by the end, where are you then breaking the law? Nowhere because you passed the measuring point at the maximum allowed speed? Or did you break the law by driving 100 in the first place?

#2048 FenderJaguar

FenderJaguar
  • Member

  • 1,458 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:24

Last thing I'll say about this - as it is becoming OT and there is a complete thread about this.

The rules dictated a maximum thread width at all times. The FIA didn't change the method of measuring, they added an extra measuring moment. Michelin was illegal. Same thing happens when any team finds out another team is breaking the rules.


Michelin made a clever solution that was legal for almost all of the 2003 season. There is a lot to read for those who are interested and let them make up their own mind. This change that the FIA did came as the season was ending. This change gave the championship to Ferrari.


From F1.com and 2003

"Under the 2003 Sporting Regulations, the tread of each front tyre must be no more than 270mm wide (for more on these regulations, click here). Up until now this has been checked when the tyre is new. However, according to Michelin "the FIA wants us now to consider the width of the front contact patch after the tyre has been used on track."
In response to the changes, Michelin have pointed out that they already have written agreement from the FIA that their front tyres comply with the regulations. They go on to explain that they feel unable to proceed with development work until they know exactly how the tread width of the tyre will be measured."




#2049 LoudHoward

LoudHoward
  • Member

  • 1,318 posts
  • Joined: April 06

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:42

Michelin didn't change their tyres for Monza or any of the remaining races that season, they put a mark on the outside of the tyres to aid the FIA in measuring, but they continued to use the same mould that they were using in Hungary through the rest of the year, and into 2004 I believe. I don't think the FIA bothered to start measuring the tyre after the race either, not consistantly anyways.

Edited by LoudHoward, 20 May 2010 - 08:44.


#2050 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 20 May 2010 - 08:48

I don't want tyregate to derail this thread again, but subscribers should read 'A Dinner in Paris', an interview with Pierre Dupasquier by Bira here.

Dupasquier: "But most importantly, we did not modify our tyre - this year we ran the same tyre as we did last year, before Hungary. The only thing we changed was added a clear mark on both sides of the tread, to make it more visible and the measurement easier. Other than that, we did not modify anything to it - we didn't even change the mould, it's the same mould. So the conspiracy is therefore not valid."

BG: If it's the same tyre, then why wasn't it legal - according to what the FIA said - in the 2003 Hungarian Grand Prix, but in 2004 is was legal?

Dupasquier: "Well we believe it was always legal - before and after 2003. But after all the mess last year, the FIA have been very fair in saying, 'OK, we agree on the fact that the tyres have to be measured when they are new' - because afterwards you get on the curbs, you get trace of contact everywhere, it's a mess, not just the side wall. The whole problem was the interpretation of what's a tread? If you remember, Charlie [Whiting] wrote to the teams after Hungary last year and said the tread is the part of the tyre which is constantly and permanently in contact with the ground. And obviously no one part of the front tyre is constantly and permanently in contact with the ground. So once this was clarified, we talked some more and really there was no argument anymore."

BG: I don't get it. Are you telling me that since then, and throughout 2004, the FIA scrutineers do not measure the tread width of the front tyres after they are used?

Dupasquier: "No, they don't. And they didn't ask us to provide input on how to do that either."

BG: Really? So all this affair last year - with Ferrari accusing you of cheating - it sounds like all this was just a storm in a tea cup...

Dupasquier: "Oh yeah, somebody just wanted to spoil the World Championship last year, in case they don't win..."