Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#3351 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:05

Interesting. Valencia where Schumacher won a lot positions with the Safety car did you calculate pro MS while GB you didn't calculated because he lost. You should take it serious and calculate both SCs or nothing.

Did you actually watch the Valencia GP? MS waiting 17 sec at pits exit and having to come again for tires next lap as the planned strategy was ruined by the red light?

I sort of can understand some of his detractors who use some facts, but fabricating arguments like you is just trolling.

Advertisement

#3352 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 906 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:08

Did you actually watch the Valencia GP? MS waiting 17 sec at pits exit and having to come again for tires next lap as the planned strategy was ruined by the red light?

I sort of can understand some of his detractors who use some facts, but fabricating arguments like you is just trolling.



That is not the point here because in our case invand911 calculated without Schumachers long pit stop. The point is that in this case Schumacher would have gained a lot due to SC on track while in GB he lost positions he did not take it into account.

#3353 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:12

That is not the point here because in our case invand911 calculated without Schumachers long pit stop. The point is that in this case Schumacher would have gained a lot due to SC on track while in GB he lost positions he did not take it into account.

I had this in view

Interesting. Valencia where Schumacher won a lot positions with the Safety car

which is not true.

#3354 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:14

Please explain where exactly Michael won positions because of SC in Valencia? As I said even with 45 points(because you are very unhappy with my calculations for 55), they both are pretty equal.

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 12:16.


#3355 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 906 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:16

I had this in view

which is not true.



This is true. Before the SC came out Schumacher was 11th and in our case ivand911 calculated without the SC pitstop a 6th place.

#3356 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 12:42

Michael have good strategy there with or without SC. Without SC , he was 11. All in front of him need to pit in 9-10 lap. Let say first 2-3 guys , come in front of him after they pit, because for 9-10 laps they can make 20-22sec. Or maybe they can't come in front of him, if they didn't make 20sec. He just need it to pit 4-5 laps before end of the race. With SC he just need it to stay out like Koba and pit 4-5 laps before the end of the race. Why I say 6th place, because I think he could be faster than Koba, make 10-15 sec difference to him. And after pit stop I think he could be around 6th place. 6th or 7th is 2 points difference. But this all was smashed by big team mistake.

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 12:44.


#3357 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 14:00

When Ayrton Senna died at Imola in '94, Michael Schumacher had just won his fifth grand prix. He had yet to score a pole position - a feat he achieved at the very next meeting in Monte Carlo - and was left to compete against Damon Hill, David Coulthard, Mika Hakkinen, Jean Alesi, etc.

With the benefit of hindsight, 1994-2001 has to be considered a weak era in Formula One's history.

Who, from that era, besides Michael Schumacher, would feature in anyone's top 10 all-time drivers list? Hakkinen on the fringes of a few lists maybe, but that's it.

IMO a great champion needs a great challenger. Senna and Prost had eachother along with Mansell and Piquet, who undoubtedly have to be held in higher regard than the likes of Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard, etc. When Montoya and Raikkonen had their first real crack at Schumi in 2003 you sensed that the competition was getting stronger and MS needed a great car to win and could no longer over-come car deficiencies like he did in 96 and 97 against stronger competition. In 2005, when Ferrari no longer had the best package, MS was basically shut out of the championship battle for the first time since 1996 but unlike that year, there were no wins (Indy obviously doesn't count). Since Hamilton, Vettel, Kubica have all come along, I feel the bar has only been raised higher and MS has been shuffled back further down the pecking order.

Alonso and Hamilton to name but two, are simply better drivers than Schumacher ever was IMO.

#3358 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 492 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 14:28

First Kubica and Michael didn't crash in Australia. Really don't know if I have to continue from here? Where in any race you see Nico to overtake Michael? We see the opposite(Michael overtake Nico) some times. In GB Michael was fighting Rubens and they wanted to overtake him with early pit(where they gain 1 sec). If he didn't make this mistake he could be 80% in front of Rubens. Then 5 place(ok let's make it 6th, 2 points difference). Valencia Michael 3rd, Koba 4th before pitstop. If you didn't hear Koba say that he was saving his tires, don't think he could overtake Michael there. Or that he will put his 4th(in the moment) position in danger. Or without knowing if he even could drive together with Michael? I am not biased in my calculation, if any other fan(fan for other driver) want to make calculations what his driver lose , he could do it in his thread and I fully support him and understand. It wasn't only Michael who lose potentially a lot of points. But I made calculations for Michael and using final results. Vettel, Alonso , Massa ,Webber and other, all they lose points. And if someone want he could make calculations like I did.
About Canada can't comment now ,have to check the facts(see the race again). But he overtaking Michael when driving one after another, don't see it happen. But even if we take 10 points from this 55 points ,there are still 45 ,more than he have now. Even with 45+36=81 . At 81 points they would be very match equal. Nico would lose same points because of Michael, they both will be around 80 points now.


Nico finished 3rd in GB with a missing bargeboard, can we put him up to 1st for that?

#3359 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 14:43

We can put him ,if you tell me how he could achieve it? Drivers in front of him was 1sec faster. Only way was first two not to finish?

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 14:46.


Advertisement

#3360 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 492 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 14:54

We can put him ,if you tell me how he could achieve it? Drivers in front of him was 1sec faster. Only way was first two not to finish?


He would have been faster with a bargeboard surely, otherwise why do they have them?

Didnt Nico have a fluffed pit stop in spain as well, putting him out of the points, what allowance have you made for that?

#3361 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 15:16

I remember a lot of drivers ,losing bargeboard before, Michael included. It wasn't giving much difference in performance. About Nico potentially losing points like Michael, I think he have own fans, they can do what I did about Michael, and I fully accepted it and respect it. Just it is not my problem. He have his thread I think. This could be done for almost every driver, because almost every driver lose points. I would be happy to see such calculations for other drivers. This maybe don't mean anything ,but they some times lose points, because of own mistakes, team mistakes or SCs, or something else. But this not mean if something like this happen to them ,they are slow or don't deserve to be here. I tried to be very conservative in my predictions, didn't say that he could win every start. :) But loosing 40-45 points, could change the way people rate him.

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 15:22.


#3362 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,007 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 15 July 2010 - 15:28

When Ayrton Senna died at Imola in '94, Michael Schumacher had just won his fifth grand prix. He had yet to score a pole position - a feat he achieved at the very next meeting in Monte Carlo - and was left to compete against Damon Hill, David Coulthard, Mika Hakkinen, Jean Alesi, etc.

With the benefit of hindsight, 1994-2001 has to be considered a weak era in Formula One's history.

Who, from that era, besides Michael Schumacher, would feature in anyone's top 10 all-time drivers list? Hakkinen on the fringes of a few lists maybe, but that's it.

IMO a great champion needs a great challenger. Senna and Prost had eachother along with Mansell and Piquet, who undoubtedly have to be held in higher regard than the likes of Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard, etc. When Montoya and Raikkonen had their first real crack at Schumi in 2003 you sensed that the competition was getting stronger and MS needed a great car to win and could no longer over-come car deficiencies like he did in 96 and 97 against stronger competition. In 2005, when Ferrari no longer had the best package, MS was basically shut out of the championship battle for the first time since 1996 but unlike that year, there were no wins (Indy obviously doesn't count). Since Hamilton, Vettel, Kubica have all come along, I feel the bar has only been raised higher and MS has been shuffled back further down the pecking order.

Alonso and Hamilton to name but two, are simply better drivers than Schumacher ever was IMO.



Did you even watch the early 1990s? When he beat Senna and Prost in far better cars??? Vintage Schu would have no problem with Alonso and the likes if he could handle Senna, Prost, Mansell who are easily better than Alonso's peers. To compare Williams and McLaren with the Benetton (which perhaps had a better engine than McLaren did in 1993) is silly.

Or with those poor Ferrari in 1996-1997, and '98 Ferrari with its inferior tires, or the 1999 season where he would have won the title? (Sans broken leg) 2003 was largely a tyre concern, Bridgestone was far behind the non Bridgestone runners.....

Its scary if Schu had the luck in '97, '98, '99.... we would be looking at 10 time world champion, and Alonso and Hamilton are better than that?

Alonso has a long, long way to go to match Michael Schumacher. For example, do you expect him to match Schu's records at Ferrari? (Schu has 72 wins alone at Ferrari).

Edited by George Costanza, 15 July 2010 - 15:36.


#3363 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 15:58

So whenever he won, it was because of him and whenever he lost, it was because of the car? This is the old rhetoric that no longer washes now that he is racing against a much stronger field of drivers. Now it's Michael that needs more time, is too old, is unfamiliar, etc...

Hamilton/Alonso of today in a 97 Ferrari would've wiped the floor with JV in a Williams, who was similarly exposed and ran out of town once the competition stepped up. JV was just as good a driver in 2003/05/06 as he was in the 90s.


#3364 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:06

Did you even watch the early 1990s? When he beat Senna and Prost in far better cars??? Vintage Schu would have no problem with Alonso and the likes if he could handle Senna, Prost, Mansell who are easily better than Alonso's peers. To compare Williams and McLaren with the Benetton (which perhaps had a better engine than McLaren did in 1993) is silly.

Or with those poor Ferrari in 1996-1997, and '98 Ferrari with its inferior tires, or the 1999 season where he would have won the title? (Sans broken leg) 2003 was largely a tyre concern, Bridgestone was far behind the non Bridgestone runners.....

Its scary if Schu had the luck in '97, '98, '99.... we would be looking at 10 time world champion, and Alonso and Hamilton are better than that?

Alonso has a long, long way to go to match Michael Schumacher. For example, do you expect him to match Schu's records at Ferrari? (Schu has 72 wins alone at Ferrari).

I remember Michael winning a few races back before 94, but he wasn't exactly beating Senna or Prost, I mean, beating them in a race from time to time, I mean, even Berger beat Senna every once in a while, even Barichello beat Schumi some days, that doesn't mean much. He certainly could battle them. That Benetton always won a race here and there before he came along though. The 93 version had the works Ford engine, who knows what Senna was getting, it wasn't like now that customer engines are the same as the works ones, I'm sure you know.

I don't know if Alonso is as good as Schumacher or not, he could be, Alonso and Hamilton are both some of those rare special talents that normally come once a generation with the odd exceptions where we might get 2, IMHO.

#3365 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:16

When Montoya and Raikkonen had their first real crack at Schumi in 2003 you sensed that the competition was getting stronger and MS needed a great car to win and could no longer over-come car deficiencies like he did in 96 and 97 against stronger competition. In 2005, when Ferrari no longer had the best package, MS was basically shut out of the championship battle for the first time since 1996 but unlike that year, there were no wins (Indy obviously doesn't count). Since Hamilton, Vettel, Kubica have all come along, I feel the bar has only been raised higher and MS has been shuffled back further down the pecking order.

Alonso and Hamilton to name but two, are simply better drivers than Schumacher ever was IMO.


2003, 2005, 2008,2009? Have you even watched these seasons? Because when analysing them, your comments about the cars, Schumi, Alonso and Lewis make no sense. Hami came after Schumi retired. What are you talking about? Or are you actually suggesting that Alonso and Hamilton right now have a better legacy than Michael. They still have a lot to prove (and win).

Is the current crop of drivers better than 10 years ago? Who knows. They didn't race in the same time. Do you have a time machine to compare Lewis at his best (which probably is still to come) with Schumi of 1996 and all the other drivers, for example.

"So whenever he won, it was because of him and whenever he lost, it was because of the car?"

No, for all drivers in the entire history it's been a combination of both.

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 16:35.


#3366 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 715 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:26

I remember Michael winning a few races back before 94, but he wasn't exactly beating Senna or Prost, I mean, beating them in a race from time to time, I mean, even Berger beat Senna every once in a while, even Barichello beat Schumi some days, that doesn't mean much. He certainly could battle them. That Benetton always won a race here and there before he came along though. The 93 version had the works Ford engine, who knows what Senna was getting, it wasn't like now that customer engines are the same as the works ones, I'm sure you know.

I don't know if Alonso is as good as Schumacher or not, he could be, Alonso and Hamilton are both some of those rare special talents that normally come once a generation with the odd exceptions where we might get 2, IMHO.

At no point in Schumacher's pre-94 career did he have a car capable of beating that of Senna/Prost. No doubt someone will throw in the slightly superior Ford engine he enjoyed over Senna back in '93, but that's more than balanced out by the excellent '93 McLaren chassis+electronics (the '93 Benneton didn't even get traction control until just before half way through the year, whereas the Mclaren started the season with it). For '91 and '92 it's not disputed by even the most blind Schumacher hater that the pecking order was 1. Williams 2. McLaren (although whether or not the speed advantage of the '91 Williams was compensated by it's dreadful reliability is debatable). That't not to mention that many people (myself included) consider Senna to be at the top of his game around that time, with Schumacher being many years away from his peak.

#3367 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:34

regarding the last gp did anyone look at the laptime comparisons between schumacher and rosberg?
http://www.f1fanatic...es-race-review/

schumacher and rosberg are clearly lapping at the same pace for the majority of the race only near the end does schumacher lose pace and thats probably because of pitting earlier for tyes

#3368 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:38

2003, 2005, 2008,2009? Have you even watched these seasons? Because when analysing them your comments about the cars, Schumi, Alonso and Lewis make no sense. Hami came after Schumi retired. What are you talking about?


Where did I mention or analyse the events of 2008 and 2009? What are you talking about?

To re-iterate, MS was having a tough time in 2005 and 2006. Decided to retire than to race against Kimi. Now he's back in 2010 and being dominated by Rosberg. The "car not performing" is no longer a valid excuse, now the performance deficit is specifically with MS.

#3369 dav115

dav115
  • Member

  • 715 posts
  • Joined: August 08

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:42

regarding the last gp did anyone look at the laptime comparisons between schumacher and rosberg?
http://www.f1fanatic...es-race-review/

schumacher and rosberg are clearly lapping at the same pace for the majority of the race only near the end does schumacher lose pace and thats probably because of pitting earlier for tyes

Thanks for the link, I did see this on the live timing but it's nice to have hard evidence after the event. Not that I expect most people to pay attention to this.

#3370 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:43

At no point in Schumacher's pre-94 career did he have a car capable of beating that of Senna/Prost. No doubt someone will throw in the slightly superior Ford engine he enjoyed over Senna back in '93, but that's more than balanced out by the excellent '93 McLaren chassis+electronics (the '93 Benneton didn't even get traction control until just before half way through the year, whereas the Mclaren started the season with it). For '91 and '92 it's not disputed by even the most blind Schumacher hater that the pecking order was 1. Williams 2. McLaren (although whether or not the speed advantage of the '91 Williams was compensated by it's dreadful reliability is debatable). That't not to mention that many people (myself included) consider Senna to be at the top of his game around that time, with Schumacher being many years away from his peak.

Nobody said he did... I only said that, that Benetton managed to win races before he came along, do with that as you would like. Back then it wasn't like today, where you can only win with a great car, some skill and strategy could go a long way, so, yea a good driver such as him could find his way into a win here and there, even in a car that wasn't as good as his oposition. That's a LOT more difficult to do today than it was back then. I'm not stating anything out of the ordinary here, I'm simply stating he wasn't " beating" Prost and Senna as somebody implied earlier. The fact that he could fight the monsters was enough to know Schumacher was a special talent, nobody in their right mind would deny this. My very personal opinion of him, he was truly great as a "package" possibly the best "package" of all time, who knows. Was he as good as 7 titles, 91 wins, etc? I have my reservations about that.

#3371 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:44

Where did I mention or analyse the events of 2008 and 2009? What are you talking about?

To re-iterate, MS was having a tough time in 2005 and 2006. Decided to retire than to race against Kimi. Now he's back in 2010 and being dominated by Rosberg. The "car not performing" is no longer a valid excuse, now the performance deficit is specifically with MS.



So what happened with Alonso in 08 and 09? And Lewis for a better part of 09? They didn't need a better car to win?

Michael had a tough time in many of his championships. So what's your point about 06? Yuo win some, you lose some. I won't even bother about 05.

The merc and the tires are simply not working for Michael. What is so hard to understand? Rosberg is simply coping better. And again i fail too see how what happens this year can influence what happened ten years ago.

"Decided to retire than to race against Kimi"

Of course. Once again opinion presented as fact.

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 16:46.


#3372 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:47

Michael lapped slowly because he damage his car when going out of the track after the pit stop.

#3373 mkoscevic

mkoscevic
  • Member

  • 622 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:48

So whenever he won, it was because of him and whenever he lost, it was because of the car? This is the old rhetoric that no longer washes now that he is racing against a much stronger field of drivers. Now it's Michael that needs more time, is too old, is unfamiliar, etc...

Hamilton/Alonso of today in a 97 Ferrari would've wiped the floor with JV in a Williams, who was similarly exposed and ran out of town once the competition stepped up. JV was just as good a driver in 2003/05/06 as he was in the 90s.


I respect your opinion but (without going statement by statement) you simply can't ignore massive challenge in McLaren/Hakkinen that Schumacher had back at late 90's. It's always easier for most of the people to think that new drivers are better then some 'old ones'. It's true that Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso are exceptional drivers, but Hakkinen was an exceptional driver too. That's not all - he has been driving faster car back then most of the time. Let's not forget that.

Edited by mkoscevic, 15 July 2010 - 16:49.


#3374 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:53

I respect your opinion but (without going statement by statement) you simply can't ignore massive challenge in McLaren/Hakkinen that Schumacher had back at late 90's. It's always easier for most of the people to think that new drivers are better then some 'old ones'. It's true that Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso are exceptional drivers, but Hakkinen was an exceptional driver too. That's not all - he has been driving faster car back then most of the time. Let's not forget that.

??? Hakkinen got a good car in 98, 99, 2000. how does that make it "most of the time"? What happened between 91 until 97? Or was Hakka's Lotus better than the Benetton? or then 94, 95, 96, and 97? those grenade like Macca's weren't the Maccas of today y'know. I remember some years when you could even argue that even the Jordan was a match for them. I remember coments from Eddie Jordan saying they didn't consider Macca a top team anymore those days. How things change, huh?

#3375 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 906 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 16:58

regarding the last gp did anyone look at the laptime comparisons between schumacher and rosberg?
http://www.f1fanatic...es-race-review/

schumacher and rosberg are clearly lapping at the same pace for the majority of the race only near the end does schumacher lose pace and thats probably because of pitting earlier for tyes



Important is lap 19-20 onwards because Barrichello, Kubica and Alguersuari hold both massively up and inlap/outlap of both pit stops are meaningless. So starting from this lap and not including the Safety car laps Schumacher drove 4 laps faster whereas Rosberg was faster in 28 laps. That's a clear thing.

#3376 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:10

Important is lap 19-20 onwards because Barrichello, Kubica and Alguersuari hold both massively up and inlap/outlap of both pit stops are meaningless. So starting from this lap and not including the Safety car laps Schumacher drove 4 laps faster whereas Rosberg was faster in 28 laps. That's a clear thing.

this isnt the rosberg vs schumacher thread.....

merely pointing out schumachers race wasnt that bad pace wise yet people are acting like it was the worst formula one drive ever

#3377 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:15

Shall I go and read up the number of intelligent analysis you have given until now? Nah, that whooping 59 posts is too much to wade trough, I give up.


Interesting. You seem to be under the illusion that having 7000 posts makes you somewhat of a better analyser than someone who has written much less. Well, I guess its much better to have 59 good posts than 7000 posts of trolling !

#3378 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:17

With the benefit of hindsight, 1994-2001 has to be considered a weak era in Formula One's history.

Alonso and Hamilton to name but two, are simply better drivers than Schumacher ever was IMO.


No good drivers in F1 for a 6 year period :rotfl:

Shows how little you know about what it takes to get to F1 and who actually gets there, I suggest you study the resumes of every driver of the top teams for that period and educate yourself.

Seems your opinion about better drivers goes against every top drivers list I have ever seen. Heres what 217 of MS and Alonso's peers think (surprise, surprise, they don't agree with you) http://f1greatestdri....autosport.com/

FWIW I think Hammo just maybe on the way to being one of the greatest F1 drivers ever, karma staying in balance, but you saying he is better than MS after just 3 years in the sport is just stupid by any standards.
I suggest you read about Fittipaldi and what can happen after 4 successful years and 2 WDC's, he's not the only example either, Alboreto for is another....
http://en.wikipedia....ldi#Formula_One




#3379 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:26

Important is lap 19-20 onwards because Barrichello, Kubica and Alguersuari hold both massively up and inlap/outlap of both pit stops are meaningless. So starting from this lap and not including the Safety car laps Schumacher drove 4 laps faster whereas Rosberg was faster in 28 laps. That's a clear thing.


I don't get it with you Wallys hanging on the fastest lap things either way for or against either driver.

I saw a lot of cars surrounding MS and Nico trying hard to stay in front of Alonso with clear track in front of him for example. This year has not been kind to any driver out there other than maybe a couple out front in terms of comparing fastest laps.

Yes Nico is currently slightly faster than MS, now can we end it? By the way and also on that, brilliant fastest lap from Rosberg early in the Brit race on heavy fuel load.

Advertisement

#3380 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:28

No good drivers in F1 for a 6 year period :rotfl:

Shows how little you know about what it takes to get to F1 and who actually gets there, I suggest you study the resumes of every driver of the top teams for that period and educate yourself.

Seems your opinion about better drivers goes against every top drivers list I have ever seen. Heres what 217 of MS and Alonso's peers think (surprise, surprise, they don't agree with you) http://f1greatestdri....autosport.com/

FWIW I think Hammo just maybe on the way to being one of the greatest F1 drivers ever, karma staying in balance, but you saying he is better than MS after just 3 years in the sport is just stupid by any standards.
I suggest you read about Fittipaldi and what can happen after 4 successful years and 2 WDC's, he's not the only example either, Alboreto for is another....
http://en.wikipedia....ldi#Formula_One

I think what he's trying to say is that, none of those drivers posted a real challenge for MS, except for Hakkinen, if that's what he's saying, I agree with him. There's never any bad drivers in Formula 1.

I guess time will tell on Hamilton, he is a special one, that's for sure, who knows how good he will end up being, but he seems to be a special one. Not just fast, but he seems to have that special IT factor, and on top of that, he seems to have a quality that I have only seen in the REALLY special ones (Prost, SEnna), where they seem to be able to find speed when it is not there at times.

#3381 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:35

One thing I cannot understand from the anti's here at all.

Every WDC in the history of F1 has won in a car which was capable of challenging for wins. Some won more, some won less. How does this reflect poorly on Schumacher alone?

As far as competition goes, there are two theories here :One is that Schumacher was much better than his competition (without there being a decline in the overall level of drivers), and the other is that an entire generation of drivers between 1994-2004 was just simply poorer than their predecessors. Which I find hard to believe, and also disrespectful of some of the very good drivers of that time. Its very unlikely that the quality of drivers could have reduced at a time when the sport was going through a revolution with globalization, big money coming in, and motorsports being accepted more and more around the world. Not to forget the much improved levels of fitness from drivers, and also the better preparation, much more work going into testing, and increasing use of telemetry,simulators etc.

I am of the opinion that each generation of drivers is slightly better than their predecessors, no matter what results seem to say. Its the case with every sport. Look at any sport you want to. 100m sprint times are always coming down. Swimming records get decimated at each Olympics. Tennis players last longer, are stronger inspite of touring a whole lot more. Football is becoming much more competitive, look at the quality of passing and defence now as compared to a few years ago. Cricket as a sport is completely unrecognisable from a few years ago. Very few of the cricketers of the past can cut it in any of these teams today. Humans are advancing in every field possible, and sport is not an exception to continuous improvement.

I certainly agree with guys who say this current grid may be better than Schumacher, simply because guys like Vettel and Hamilton have been much better prepared, have had a much more science in their training, in their racing, and basically better equipped to handle the racing of today. This may be one of the reasons why Schumacher may never again win another title, or even win another race for that matter. If he does it will be one of the greatest achievements in all sport, not just F1. Its no big shame losing to the younger generation, because they're using methods that have been much improved from the times Schumacher was racing in. But to just brush away his achievements is something really harsh to me.

The only way to determine greatness of a sportsman is to measure his performances in comparison to his peers. Everything else is just hearsay and opinion, obviously coloured by your own bias. In the end all that does matter is how good Schumacher did when he was up against his generation of drivers, and upto a certain extent against a group of younger racers as well. Looking at his record it isnt too bad, 7 WDCs is a lot and in my eyes more than enough to prove to me that he did the job better than anyone else in the history of the sport.

Tomorrow if Lewis Hamilton decimates his competition for 8 WDCs, I would gladly accept him as the greatest ever. Its as simple as that for me, really

#3382 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,007 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:37

I remember Michael winning a few races back before 94, but he wasn't exactly beating Senna or Prost, I mean, beating them in a race from time to time, I mean, even Berger beat Senna every once in a while, even Barichello beat Schumi some days, that doesn't mean much. He certainly could battle them. That Benetton always won a race here and there before he came along though. The 93 version had the works Ford engine, who knows what Senna was getting, it wasn't like now that customer engines are the same as the works ones, I'm sure you know.

I don't know if Alonso is as good as Schumacher or not, he could be, Alonso and Hamilton are both some of those rare special talents that normally come once a generation with the odd exceptions where we might get 2, IMHO.



Yeah, yeah the McLaren of '93 had the weaker version of the Ford engine, which Senna felt wasn't as good as the Benetton works, but he could hang with them pretty well and even beat Senna in '92 season (points total).

Point is, to say Lewis and Fernando are better than Schumi at this point is pretty stupid.


Edited by George Costanza, 15 July 2010 - 17:40.


#3383 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 906 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 17:42

I don't get it with you Wallys hanging on the fastest lap things either way for or against either driver.



It wasn't my comparison, arknor started this.

#3384 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:00

Yeah, yeah the McLaren of '93 had the weaker version of the Ford engine, which Senna felt wasn't as good as the Benetton works, but he could hang with them pretty well and even beat Senna in '92 season (points total).

Point is, to say Lewis and Fernando are better than Schumi at this point is pretty stupid.

Haha, points! Well, that isn't exacctly saying a whole lot, is it? I remember Senna that year had a ton of trouble in 92, still won his customary Monaco though, we can't really say he got his ass handed to him by Schumacher, it's not exactly the case, now, is it?

It's not stupid to have an opinion that a given driver is more talented, even if he has only raced a few years, it's only an opinion, you see. Many people said the same thing about Schumacher back then, and they were right, who's to say he's not right this time too?

What is stupid though, is the never ending debate of my "my great driver from this era is better than your great driver from that era"

Edited by Birelman, 15 July 2010 - 18:03.


#3385 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:02

No good drivers in F1 for a 6 year period :rotfl:

Shows how little you know about what it takes to get to F1 and who actually gets there, I suggest you study the resumes of every driver of the top teams for that period and educate yourself.

Seems your opinion about better drivers goes against every top drivers list I have ever seen. Heres what 217 of MS and Alonso's peers think (surprise, surprise, they don't agree with you) http://f1greatestdri....autosport.com/

FWIW I think Hammo just maybe on the way to being one of the greatest F1 drivers ever, karma staying in balance, but you saying he is better than MS after just 3 years in the sport is just stupid by any standards.
I suggest you read about Fittipaldi and what can happen after 4 successful years and 2 WDC's, he's not the only example either, Alboreto for is another....
http://en.wikipedia....ldi#Formula_One


Unfortunately for you, Schumacher will slide down any future lists of this nature now that we're seeing him compete on a level platform against a team mate who is by no means an established top tier driver of today.

Along with Schumacher, Alonso, Raikkonen and Hamilton are all in the top 25, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Vettel and Kubica in most people's top 20 before the next five years are out. Only Hakkinen is present from the time period I mentioned which is surely testament to the fact that it was a weak era.

Is it even up for debate that Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard, Irvine, etc could hold a candle to the era of drivers before and after?

Schumacher is just a stats monster. His longevity is admirable, but when you look at the way in which he won, who he beat for his world titles (in direct competition) and how he is now faring against stronger competition, his place in history will have to be reassessed.

#3386 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:27

Unfortunately for you, Schumacher will slide down any future lists of this nature now that we're seeing him compete on a level platform against a team mate who is by no means an established top tier driver of today.

Along with Schumacher, Alonso, Raikkonen and Hamilton are all in the top 25, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Vettel and Kubica in most people's top 20 before the next five years are out. Only Hakkinen is present from the time period I mentioned which is surely testament to the fact that it was a weak era.

Is it even up for debate that Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard, Irvine, etc could hold a candle to the era of drivers before and after?

Schumacher is just a stats monster. His longevity is admirable, but when you look at the way in which he won, who he beat for his world titles (in direct competition) and how he is now faring against stronger competition, his place in history will have to be reassessed.


Can you give the lotto numbers for 20 years from now, too?

05,06 didn't hurt his legacy. So why would his comeback at 41 have any effect on his overall career?

We'll talk when all those guys retire what their place in history is. It's human nature to regard current drivers higher then they will eventually settle. But for Michael he also has the stats. Which right now say that he has more wins than the entire grid combined (now matter how good it is).

And in case you forgot : Schumacher raced against and beat both Raikkonen and Alonso, winning 4 titles in that time.

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 18:28.


#3387 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:32

Unfortunately for you, Schumacher will slide down any future lists of this nature now that we're seeing him compete on a level platform against a team mate who is by no means an established top tier driver of today.

Along with Schumacher, Alonso, Raikkonen and Hamilton are all in the top 25, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Vettel and Kubica in most people's top 20 before the next five years are out. Only Hakkinen is present from the time period I mentioned which is surely testament to the fact that it was a weak era.

Is it even up for debate that Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard, Irvine, etc could hold a candle to the era of drivers before and after?

Schumacher is just a stats monster. His longevity is admirable, but when you look at the way in which he won, who he beat for his world titles (in direct competition) and how he is now faring against stronger competition, his place in history will have to be reassessed.



Absolutley. Good to finally see some realism amongst blind fanatism.As admireable as the likes of Hill, Villeneuve, Coulthard and Irvine are in their own respective ways, they were never and never will be considered as top ranking GP drivers. And I mean in the kindest way because I have a lot of time for some of those drivers from that period like Damon Hill, Frentzen and Wendlinger for example for their attitude towards racing and their general behaviour and personalities. They were very highly skilled comepetent racers but without doubt standards really began to improve when Alonso moved to Renault. As disappointing and childish the Spaniards behaviour has been out of the cockpit in recent years, his ability in the cockpit really raised the bar. His 2005 and 2006 seasons were excellent and he won the WDC in both years at a very young age in what was an inferior car to that of the Ferrari. Then we have the likes of Lewis Hamilton who has been in a class of his own for the last few seasons and very rapid highly talented drivers like Vettel entering the sport. The standard of racers now is extremely high. Ex-drivers have said the same too. As a consequence M Schumacher doesnt seem to be as good as he was...but that is doing the mans determination and ability a grave injustice. He is pretty much as good as he has ever been but standards have changed as have his circumstances regarding preferential treatment.

#3388 scarletf12002

scarletf12002
  • Member

  • 77 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:34

No good drivers in F1 for a 6 year period :rotfl:

Shows how little you know about what it takes to get to F1 and who actually gets there, I suggest you study the resumes of every driver of the top teams for that period and educate yourself.

Seems your opinion about better drivers goes against every top drivers list I have ever seen. Heres what 217 of MS and Alonso's peers think (surprise, surprise, they don't agree with you) http://f1greatestdri....autosport.com/

FWIW I think Hammo just maybe on the way to being one of the greatest F1 drivers ever, karma staying in balance, but you saying he is better than MS after just 3 years in the sport is just stupid by any standards.
I suggest you read about Fittipaldi and what can happen after 4 successful years and 2 WDC's, he's not the only example either, Alboreto for is another....
http://en.wikipedia....ldi#Formula_One



Thanks for that, I was really surprised at the number of modern drivers there in it!

#3389 arknor

arknor
  • Member

  • 2,298 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:37

It wasn't my comparison, arknor started this.

i didnt start anything i merely pointed out schumachers race pace was almost identicle to rosberg for the majority of the race and then you decided to turn it into a rosberg is better than schumacher because he set more fastest laps during the race.

stop trolling

#3390 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:41

His 2005 and 2006 seasons were excellent and he won the WDC in both years at a very young age in what was an inferior car to that of the Ferrari.


Rofl.

"He is pretty much as good as he has ever been but standards have changed as have his circumstances regarding preferential treatment."

Being as good means nothing without a car.Should i bring back the question about Alonso's 08 and 09 seasons?

Or Alonso's '10 season which is almost as bad as Michael's. His only salvation is that he has 4 other drivers fighting at the top, taking points form each other. And btw, how good is the current crop if Button and Webber fight for teh championship although they were hardly considered at the top for years. Is that a legitimate question?

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 18:49.


#3391 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:44

Lets all hug and be happy, Michael is with us next year. Isn't that beautiful? :rotfl: Can't wait to the Germany GP.

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 18:46.


#3392 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:55

Lets all hug and be happy, Michael is with us next year. Isn't that beautiful? :rotfl: Can't wait to the Germany GP.



Absolutely! For once I have to agree with you! I also cant wait for the German GP and I think its great that M Schumacher is back for the entertainment value. A shame his fans refuse to accept reality, but i guess they can always go and watch dvd's of him racing wheel to wheel and beating the likes of David Coulthard and Eddie Irvine while the rest of us in the present watch the amazingly talented batch of drivers today such as Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel show their impressive skills. Oh and we can keep an eye open for that guy called Rosberg too. :-)

#3393 rog

rog
  • Member

  • 906 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:56

i didnt start anything i merely pointed out schumachers race pace was almost identicle to rosberg for the majority of the race and then you decided to turn it into a rosberg is better than schumacher because he set more fastest laps during the race.

stop trolling



And that's wrong if you look deeper into it. Except if you say 0,5 seconds is almost identical. But I have to admit in todays F1 it is huge.

#3394 Nathan

Nathan
  • Member

  • 2,563 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 18:58

If MS' issues are largely adapting to the new tires, how will he fair next year when the tires change again??


#3395 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,433 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:01

Alonso, Vettel


Yeah, those two are really impressive this year. I can't decide which deserves the WDC more. But hey, they can improve. Incidentally so can Michael.

If Michael races next year too Alonso can match the number of WDC's each won in the time tehy raced together. And if he wins every race in that time he actually almost comes to half of MSC's.Good luck with that. :lol:


If MS' issues are largely adapting to the new tires, how will he fair next year when the tires change again??


Well for half of last year and this year too Merc/ Brawn had the problem of heating the tires.So hopefully they can find a solution for next year. And in designing next years car Michael will have an input.


Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 19:04.


#3396 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:13

Yeah, those two are really impressive this year. I can't decide which deserves the WDC more. But hey, they can improve. Incidentally so can Michael.

If Michael races next year too Alonso can match the number of WDC's each won in the time tehy raced together. And if he wins every race in that time he actually almost comes to half of MSC's.Good luck with that. :lol:




Well for half of last year and this year too Merc/ Brawn had the problem of heating the tires.So hopefully they can find a solution for next year. And in designing next years car Michael will have an input.



Living in the past with M Schumachers vital statistics acheived against the mighty Irvines and Coulthards of this world. :-)

I prefer to watch the top drivers do battle. Hopefully from your perspective the tv producers will pay a little more attention for the remainder of the season to what is happening in midfield/tail-end of the grid where your man can usually be found giving it his all. LOL!

#3397 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 379 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:14

And in case you forgot : Schumacher raced against and beat both Raikkonen and Alonso, winning 4 titles in that time.


Not really. That's like saying Hamilton/Button/Webber/Vettel are all racing against and giving Schumacher a good hiding this year and that would be unfair to Michael. Due to the competitiveness of their cars, it's obvious they are not in direct competition with eachother.

Schumacher and Alonso were only in direct competition with eachother in 2006 and Alonso won. Schumacher never defeated Alonso in direct F1 competition for a world title.

#3398 mkoscevic

mkoscevic
  • Member

  • 622 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:16

??? Hakkinen got a good car in 98, 99, 2000. how does that make it "most of the time"?


I meant most of the time in the late 90's.


#3399 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:18

Yeah, those two are really impressive this year. I can't decide which deserves the WDC more. But hey, they can improve. Incidentally so can Michael.

If Michael races next year too Alonso can match the number of WDC's each won in the time tehy raced together. And if he wins every race in that time he actually almost comes to half of MSC's.Good luck with that. :lol:




Well for half of last year and this year too Merc/ Brawn had the problem of heating the tires.So hopefully they can find a solution for next year. And in designing next years car Michael will have an input.

I thought Raikkonen's problems with tires and general caracteristics of the Ferrari was definite proof that Raikkonen was the worst ever driver and Michael the best ever as Michael can adapt to anything and Raikkonen couldn't? Poor old Raikkonen needed a car made to his liking? WTF is that all about?? I keep getting lost....

Edited by Birelman, 15 July 2010 - 19:19.


Advertisement

#3400 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,301 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:19

Not really. That's like saying Hamilton/Button/Webber/Vettel are all racing against and giving Schumacher a good hiding this year and that would be unfair to Michael. Due to the competitiveness of their cars, it's obvious they are not in direct competition with eachother.

Schumacher and Alonso were only in direct competition with eachother in 2006 and Alonso won. Schumacher never defeated Alonso in direct F1 competition for a world title.



Common sense well said.