Jump to content


Photo

Michael Schumacher (merged)


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

#3401 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:25

man, this thread is not about what you like to do and what you like to watch. Do you think we care? If you dislike DC and Irvine go and tell them , we don't care again. Wrong thread.

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 19:29.


Advertisement

#3402 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:25

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.

Come to think of it, he hardly had direct competition from 2001 until 2005 as his nearest rival was hardly in machinery that could reallisticly beat him on a consistent basis

#3403 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:31

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!


Or against the mighty Kimi and Alonso.

Of course after 15 years of Schumacher domination it can get boring to watch the same thing.

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.



What, the mighty Alonso couldn't drive around a bad car, to be in direct competition with him? So in the end what is it :car, driver, combination of it?

Of course i could point out that one season is hardly relevant for any statistic.

Oh, and you forgot Raikonnen.

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....


Or it was proof that there is always a combination of driver and car.

Come to think of it, he hardly had direct competition from 2001 until 2005 as his nearest rival was hardly in machinery that could reallisticly beat him on a consistent basis


So Michael or drivers in general have no influence on the cars they drive?

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 19:37.


#3404 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:31

man, this thread is not about what you like to do and what you like to watch. Do you think we care? If you dislike DC and Irvine go an tell them , we don't care again. Wrong thread.



It has been said to you on various occassions now. Unfortuante for you, autosport.com is not a M Schumacher fanclub as such. If you only wish to read about your favourite driver from an extremist and pro M Schumacher slant i am sure there are many more appropriate websites you can join and enjoy. I hope you dont find the need to leave us as autosport.com but im afriad you will never acheive what you are pleading for in a forum such as this.

No offence intended.

To remind you:

"Aim of this thread is to discuss issues related to Michael Schumacher."

That can include discussion of the man and his performances. Obviously, you will find those that agree and disagree with you. That is the nature of a forum. Pleading for others to leave is not really fairplay.

Edited by man, 15 July 2010 - 19:43.


#3405 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:43

"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! "
"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. :-) "
What here is about the thread? It is about you, we don't care. It is I, I ,I. Please spare us this.

#3406 man

man
  • Member

  • 1,302 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:50

"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! "
"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. :-) "
What here is about the thread? It is about you, we don't care. It is I, I ,I. Please spare us this.


The nature of forum discussion is about "I". It is about opinions, therefore the constant usage of the word "I" . If you really dont like and cannot accept people having opinions about M Schumacher and stating them in this thread I really suggest you utilise wiki where you can read 'factual' information without disucssion. :rolleyes:

#3407 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:53

"What, the mighty Alonso couldn't drive around a bad car, to be in direct competition with him?"

No one can win with a car that it truly more than 2-3 tenths off the pace providing the drivers ahead are half-decent and don't make mistakes or suffer reliability woes.

This is a concept that is apparently only lost on rabid Schumacher fans.

Jenson Button probably isn't regarded by many as one of the top 3 of todays crop, but he has proven capable of getting the job done and consistently performing to a high enough standard when given the right car and opportunity.

Of course Schumacher deserves credit for winning a lot of races and a couple of titles while not driving the best car, but Coulthard at Adelaide in 1995 pretty much sums up the level of competition he was facing during that era when he didn't have the best car.

#3408 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 19:57

Of course Schumacher deserves credit for winning a lot of races and a couple of titles while not driving the best car, but Coulthard at Adelaide in 1995 pretty much sums up the level of competition he was facing during that era when he didn't have the best car.


China 2007? Q.e.d.

Not to mention the fact that there were many years when Schumacher didn't have a dominating car and that some of his competitors were screwed by their own career choices.

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 19:59.


#3409 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 20:05

China 2007? Q.e.d.


I presume you mean 2006, not 2007. It was a good individual drive, but aided by circumstance (Renault made the wrong choice to change FA's tyres) and on balance of the season, Alonso proved the superior driver, made less mistakes and maximised his opportunities more often.

Edited by Jimmy, 15 July 2010 - 20:08.


#3410 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 20:06

I presume you mean 2006, not 2007. It was a good individual drive, but on balance of the season, Alonso proved the superior driver, made less mistakes and maximised his opportunities more often.


No, i mean 2007 when Lewis binned it in the pit entry. So one mistake decides over an entire generation of drivers?

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 20:07.


#3411 Jimmy

Jimmy
  • Member

  • 382 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 15 July 2010 - 20:18

No, i mean 2007 when Lewis binned it in the pit entry. So one mistake decides over an entire generation of drivers?


No of course not, but how many times did Hill and Coulthard slip off a perfectly good track in 1995? Too many. Hamilton may have made a daft blunder, albeit on a damp track and on tyres with virtually no rubber left, but he went on to win a WDC whereas Coulthard made a career out of talking the talk without walking the walk.

#3412 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,712 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 15 July 2010 - 20:21

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 !


It's you who started with that pompous analyser stuff. Ironically, your apparent belief that every post of yours is a "good" post says everything about your expertise in that department. :p

#3413 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 July 2010 - 20:23

No of course not, but how many times did Hill and Coulthard slip off a perfectly good track in 1995? Too many. Hamilton may have made a daft blunder, albeit on a damp track and on tyres with virtually no rubber left, but he went on to win a WDC whereas Coulthard made a career out of talking the talk without walking the walk.


Yes, but Coulthard wasn't the only driver. And on his personal case i think his career was over the moment he moved over for Hakkinen.

JV made a stupid career choice, Hill is debatable and Hakkinen was great.

Edited by Diablobb81, 15 July 2010 - 20:24.


#3414 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 20:57

So Michael believes - as do many of his fans here - that his three year contract will give him another crack at it with M-B in 2011. If contracts were honoured by honourable people in F1 we would have seen some very different lineups in the last 20 years or so. If Nico continues to outpace, outrace and outscore by the margin seen so far how many people can be objective enough to see that Michael's marketing value for the team will be enough to make up for the lack of results. Can anyone see Norb having a quiet word with Michael in about a month's time before the 2011 driver lineup is finalised?

Hell, I guess this will make me a MS hater or troll! :smoking:

On the other hand I can see there will some who with some justification will say, Michael will help drive the 2011 team development towards WDC success. That's a plausible theory but the possible trip up here is some in M-B will feel that Nico is the driver whose input should be valued. Perhaps of interest, Frank and Patrick once said early in his career that Nico was the most intelligent driver ever to drive for them at Williams. Actually that was based on an intelligence test they get prospective drivers to do before contracts are stitched up.

I'm quite happy to see Michael continue to try to reignite his career but I believe the evidence is ticking for old father time.

#3415 Muz Bee

Muz Bee
  • Member

  • 2,531 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 July 2010 - 21:25

Yes, but Coulthard wasn't the only driver. And on his personal case i think his career was over the moment he moved over for Hakkinen.

JV made a stupid career choice, Hill is debatable and Hakkinen was great.

We are in danger in off topic but IMHO the era presented only one possible historic top 20 driver - Hakkinen. Frentzen was fast and fragile, Ralf was quick and stupid, Coulthard solid, Hill was fragile, JV was one dimensional. Anyone else? Michael faces some very good drivers today some who are still really on the ascendency like Vettel, Kubica and Rosberg. Combined with Hamilton who will easily become a top 10 of all time along with Alonso and the underrated Button it's easy to see why one driver is able to score podiums and the other struggle to make the top 8 in a car which is only 4th or 5th best.

#3416 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 July 2010 - 04:22

We are in danger in off topic but IMHO the era presented only one possible historic top 20 driver - Hakkinen. Frentzen was fast and fragile, Ralf was quick and stupid, Coulthard solid, Hill was fragile, JV was one dimensional. Anyone else? Michael faces some very good drivers today some who are still really on the ascendency like Vettel, Kubica and Rosberg. Combined with Hamilton who will easily become a top 10 of all time along with Alonso and the underrated Button it's easy to see why one driver is able to score podiums and the other struggle to make the top 8 in a car which is only 4th or 5th best.

Now that you mention it, Schumacher has never been in this situation before with the 4th or 5th best car, he always drove one of the best 3, at worst.

#3417 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:25

Now that you mention it, Schumacher has never been in this situation before with the 4th or 5th best car, he always drove one of the best 3, at worst.


I think this is the main point people are missing. I think MS is doing a good job this year, but people are looking back at the 90's and expecting something similar. The gap between MS and MW in the last race would have got him on the podium back in the 90's. It was normal for the 2nd fastest car at times to be a 30 seconds to a minute behind the fastest back then. Problem for MS now is that there are maybe as many as 8 or 9 drivers between him and 1st place these days. He simply isn't getting noticed, where in the past a similar performance would get him in the top 3. He always seemed to be competitive because there was never any more then about 4 cars with a shot at the podium 10 years ago. The F1 field is so compacted now that 10 seconds could cover half dozen places at the finish line. (plus the fact that everyone has bullet proof reliability these days)

Edited by Jazza, 16 July 2010 - 06:26.


#3418 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:32

Now that you mention it, Schumacher has never been in this situation before with the 4th or 5th best car, he always drove one of the best 3, at worst.

Have you ever watched F1 at the beginning when Schumacher entered in this sport. He was driving for Jordan if I am not mistaken, and also Ferrari in 1996 was not best third car on the grid. Both Williams were better that year and Mclarens in most of the races. I can agree with you if you mean the cars in which he won WDC. Till now I know only one driver who began the career in the best three cars and in one of the best F1 team in the history of the F1 (Mclaren) this was Hamilton all other drivers went trough hard selection in smaller teams with cars which were at the back of the grid. I like Hamilton I think that he is one of the best drivers on the grid if not the best in current rules. I have only one dilemma for all the new stars in the grid is there anyone who will dominate in the F1 like Schumacher, Senna, Prost or Fangio did?

#3419 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:48

Now that you mention it, Schumacher has never been in this situation before with the 4th or 5th best car, he always drove one of the best 3, at worst.


Which raises the question for Jummy, are his results better than Hamilton's and Alonso's for this first half season compared to first half season of 2009?

Advertisement

#3420 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 16 July 2010 - 06:49

Problem for MS now is that there are maybe as many as 8 or 9 drivers between him and 1st place these days. He simply isn't getting noticed,


He cetainly gets noticed here :rotfl:

#3421 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 07:06

In now days there are drivers in the grid that Schumacher has beaten them for a long period just to name few of them who are now at the top Button and Weber and jet they are both better than Schumacher is now. I think that there are several reasons for that which were all repeated several times in this thread. Is there a place for Schumacher on the grid of F1 is he still fast enough to deserve to be on the grid of F1 my answer to that question is yes. Can he win another WDC in his second career if you look at Button who won WDC last year everything is possible. We can also all agree that F1 is more interesting when Schumacher has returned from retirement. If Schumacher will not succeed to get the eight WDC there will be no harm in his legacy because in the future let say 20 years from now people will only remember how many times one person was WDC and how many times one driver has won GP all other things will be forgotten.

#3422 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 16 July 2010 - 07:30

He was driving for Jordan if I am not mistaken, and also Ferrari in 1996 was not best third car on the grid. Both Williams were better that year and Mclarens in most of the races.


With Jordan he drove one qualifying and in 1996 the McLaren was crap. Williams was the best and you're right the 1996 Ferrari wasn't the 3rd best car - it was joint 2nd with the Benetton. Ferrari's #1 policy made the 1996 Ferrari look worse than it actually was, as Irvine couldn't get the setups work for him at all and as a consequence was often nowhere. The 1996 Ferrari was pretty quick under it's #1 driver, but had a lot of unreliabilty problems.

Edited by Big Block 8, 16 July 2010 - 07:32.


#3423 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,155 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 July 2010 - 09:17

man, this thread is not about what you like to do and what you like to watch. Do you think we care? If you dislike DC and Irvine go and tell them , we don't care again. Wrong thread.


Ah, the majority is speaking here - the natural owners of this thread.
You will have a lot of fun in the weeks and months to come..

What here is about the thread? It is about you, we don't care. It is I, I ,I. Please spare us this.


Another gem....

I wonder who these persons, "we", "us" are? :)

Edited by aditya-now, 16 July 2010 - 10:15.


#3424 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 10:09

"You will have a lot of fun in the weeks and months to come.. "
You are right about that. :) You bold wrong parts of my post. You need it to focus on this: "this thread is not about what you like to do and what you like to watch. " But ,maybe you are very interested of man's personal life. Who, am I to stand on your way.

Edited by ivand911, 16 July 2010 - 10:13.


#3425 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,155 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 July 2010 - 10:17

"You will have a lot of fun in the weeks and months to come.. "
You are right about that. :) You bold wrong parts of my post. You need it to focus on this: "this thread is not about what you like to do and what you like to watch. " But ,maybe you are very interested of man's personal life. Who, am I to stand on your way.


So we can be friends after all - I feel a kind soul in you, even if we are on opposite sides concerning Schumacher.
Also I like the "911" in your name!

Peace.


#3426 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 10:44

Ferrari's #1 policy made the 1996 Ferrari look worse than it actually was, as Irvine couldn't get the setups work for him at all and as a consequence was often nowhere. The 1996 Ferrari was pretty quick under it's #1 driver, but had a lot of unreliabilty problems.


This are only yours speculations.

#3427 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:06

This are only yours speculations.


Actually he is right with this. EI hardly touched the car before Melbourne. The Portugal test in winter was interesting as Ferrari brought several cars for MS to test and not one for EI. In later years Eddie did a lot more testing, but in 96 it was mostly MS.


#3428 FigJam

FigJam
  • Member

  • 2,034 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:22

We are in danger in off topic but IMHO the era presented only one possible historic top 20 driver - Hakkinen. Frentzen was fast and fragile, Ralf was quick and stupid, Coulthard solid, Hill was fragile, JV was one dimensional. Anyone else? Michael faces some very good drivers today some who are still really on the ascendency like Vettel, Kubica and Rosberg. Combined with Hamilton who will easily become a top 10 of all time along with Alonso and the underrated Button it's easy to see why one driver is able to score podiums and the other struggle to make the top 8 in a car which is only 4th or 5th best.


That's some crystal ball you have there. Don't jump the gun or anything.

I'm a Hamilton fan but predicting that is ridiculous at this stage. Same for Alonso who, IMO, is nowhere near top 10 of all time right now.


Edited by FIGJAM, 16 July 2010 - 12:25.


#3429 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 23,601 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:34

Actually he is right with this. EI hardly touched the car before Melbourne. The Portugal test in winter was interesting as Ferrari brought several cars for MS to test and not one for EI. In later years Eddie did a lot more testing, but in 96 it was mostly MS.


And Eddies opinion of that car?

#3430 as65p

as65p
  • Member

  • 17,712 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:37

And Eddies opinion of that car?


Surely not that bad when first time out he beat MS in qualifying, despite the latters exclusive testing rights at that time. After that it's gone downhill fast, in somewhat mysterious ways. :D

#3431 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:43

And Eddies opinion of that car?


He thought it was crap...

But what relevance does that have to slaveceru's incorrect accusation that Big Block was speculating? It was common knowledge at the time that the team was built around MS, and that this affected EI's performance because he got almost no time in the car. Should we be talking about IE's opinions about that as well?

#3432 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:44

After that it's gone downhill fast, in somewhat mysterious ways. :D


Mysterious as in "Schumi was better than me" ways?

#3433 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 11,026 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 16 July 2010 - 12:54

We are in danger in off topic but IMHO the era presented only one possible historic top 20 driver - Hakkinen. Frentzen was fast and fragile, Ralf was quick and stupid, Coulthard solid, Hill was fragile, JV was one dimensional. Anyone else? Michael faces some very good drivers today some who are still really on the ascendency like Vettel, Kubica and Rosberg. Combined with Hamilton who will easily become a top 10 of all time along with Alonso and the underrated Button it's easy to see why one driver is able to score podiums and the other struggle to make the top 8 in a car which is only 4th or 5th best.

Will those drivers not make it into the top 20 because they weren't great or because the exceptional Schumacher made them look ordinary?

Someone mentioned it in another thread, I think, but Asafa Powell and Tyson Gay are running phenomenal times in the 100m. You take away Usain Bolt and those guys would go down in history as greats of the sport. Running in his shadow, though ...

I am not saying there is a definitive answer to the question int he first line. What I am trying to do, though, is point out the circularity of it all. You take away Schumacher and would we be saying those guys weren't good enough or would the WDCs (that Schumacher leaves behind thanks to being erased from history Dr Who style) that would have been picked up by somebody get one or two of those drivers promoted into the top 20? We'll never know.

#3434 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 16 July 2010 - 13:51

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


Mmmm. The evidence seems to me to tell another story: Schumachar was, lap by lap, generally slower than Rosberg. From lap 35 he was faster than Rosberg just once. Not very good news.


#3435 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 19:54

He thought it was crap...

But what relevance does that have to slaveceru's incorrect accusation that Big Block was speculating? It was common knowledge at the time that the team was built around MS, and that this affected EI's performance because he got almost no time in the car. Should we be talking about IE's opinions about that as well?

Ferrari's #1 policy made the 1996 Ferrari look worse than it actually was, as Irvine couldn't get the setups work for him at all and as a consequence was often nowhere. The 1996 Ferrari was pretty quick under it's #1 driver, but had a lot of unreliabilty problems.
Everything which I have marked in bold is pure speculation there is no real prove for it.

#3436 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 20:34

Mmmm. The evidence seems to me to tell another story: Schumachar was, lap by lap, generally slower than Rosberg. From lap 35 he was faster than Rosberg just once. Not very good news.

You can use this data, they was driving usually with the speed of the driver infront of them. In the beginning Nico drive behind Kubica ,where Michael drove behind Bari. I mean this wasn't their free air speed. After lap 31 , Nico drove in free air to the end, where Michael was always behind somebody. Also Ross say there was some damage on Michael car from his going out of the track in lap 12. This graphs a very funny.
http://www.fia.com/e...ace-history.pdf

#3437 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 16 July 2010 - 21:48

This are only yours speculations.


Regs the bold part:

Not just mine, but you're right it's only speculation. Fact is though that EI did get only fraction of the testing time and with hindsight we know that the whole operation revolved around Schumacher anyway. Which means, testing or no testing, they at Ferrari didn't give a toss about what Irvine asked for, unless of course Schumacher coincidentally asked for the same.

So hence the speculation that the 96 Ferrari was way better than thought at the time, as Irvine's performances can't really be used for any sort of yardstick. More popular speculation at the time was that Schumacher simply was a full second or thereabouts per lap faster than any other driver on the grid, but somehow I have a hard time believing that one today.

#3438 Rocket73

Rocket73
  • Member

  • 1,603 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 16 July 2010 - 22:25

schumacher has had enough time to get used to the regs and overcome his rustiness - he is performing at his level now like every driver and there's no more reason why he should start shooting up the rankings than buemi or alguesuari or petrov. that's just the way it is...

#3439 Schuperman

Schuperman
  • Member

  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 16 July 2010 - 22:35

Regs the bold part:

Not just mine, but you're right it's only speculation. Fact is though that EI did get only fraction of the testing time and with hindsight we know that the whole operation revolved around Schumacher anyway. Which means, testing or no testing, they at Ferrari didn't give a toss about what Irvine asked for, unless of course Schumacher coincidentally asked for the same.

So hence the speculation that the 96 Ferrari was way better than thought at the time, as Irvine's performances can't really be used for any sort of yardstick. More popular speculation at the time was that Schumacher simply was a full second or thereabouts per lap faster than any other driver on the grid, but somehow I have a hard time believing that one today.


In general, I agree, unlike 100m sprinter for example, there is no definite yardstick to measure F1 drivers' performances. According to you, it is all based on speculation. You may speculate Irvine was the better Ferrari driver then. But most experts at that time, Moss for example, may not agree with you. He said it in the history of F1 he had never seen a driver that was so far ahead of his competition. Yes, surely it was just a speculation. After all there was no definitive proof.

And, Todt bought that speculation. The rest is history. A domination.

And, based on your speculation, how should Ferrari 1996 - 2006 should be run?

Since we are partly talking about Ferrari previous modus operandi, in your speculation, how the current Ferrari is run? Revolving around Alonso? And based on current results, do you speculate Massa is the better driver?

Just out of curiosity, on the current grid, which team do you speculate is better than it is thought? Ferrari?



Advertisement

#3440 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 01:01

In general, I agree, unlike 100m sprinter for example, there is no definite yardstick to measure F1 drivers' performances. According to you, it is all based on speculation. You may speculate Irvine was the better Ferrari driver then. But most experts at that time, Moss for example, may not agree with you. He said it in the history of F1 he had never seen a driver that was so far ahead of his competition. Yes, surely it was just a speculation. After all there was no definitive proof.

And, Todt bought that speculation. The rest is history. A domination.

And, based on your speculation, how should Ferrari 1996 - 2006 should be run?

Since we are partly talking about Ferrari previous modus operandi, in your speculation, how the current Ferrari is run? Revolving around Alonso? And based on current results, do you speculate Massa is the better driver?

Just out of curiosity, on the current grid, which team do you speculate is better than it is thought? Ferrari?

I think you intercepted Big Block's point at the wrong post. He doesn't mean to say Irvine is better, or that Ferrari shouldn't have run the team that way, or anything of the sorts. He's simply stating that Irvine's preformance can't be taken as a useful measuring stick against Schumacher's performance, or the overall performance of the 96 Ferrari. Everyone knows Eddie Irvine stank, he was no competition for Schumacher, that's nothing new.

Edited by Birelman, 17 July 2010 - 01:02.


#3441 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 01:11

Have you ever watched F1 at the beginning when Schumacher entered in this sport. He was driving for Jordan if I am not mistaken, and also Ferrari in 1996 was not best third car on the grid. Both Williams were better that year and Mclarens in most of the races. I can agree with you if you mean the cars in which he won WDC. Till now I know only one driver who began the career in the best three cars and in one of the best F1 team in the history of the F1 (Mclaren) this was Hamilton all other drivers went trough hard selection in smaller teams with cars which were at the back of the grid. I like Hamilton I think that he is one of the best drivers on the grid if not the best in current rules. I have only one dilemma for all the new stars in the grid is there anyone who will dominate in the F1 like Schumacher, Senna, Prost or Fangio did?

Well, you know, that wasn't the beggining of Formula 1. But anyway, actually, Schumacher only qualified in that Jordan once, at Spa, and yes, I remember the race weekend well, and I remember Jordan that year. Schumacher stepped in for Bertrandt Gachot, who? Yes, Bertrandt Gachot, and Gachot used to go very well in that Jordan too, it wasn't completely useless by any means, probably comparable in relative performance to today's Toro Rosso. What would you call that 96 Ferrari's position performance wise? not top 3? Who was better? besides Williams? Benetton (debatable)? and who else? the 96 grenadelike McLarens? :rotfl: Those Maccas stank to high hell, it started to improve around the end of the year, but far from competitive against the Ferrari. Anyone else? nope!

I'm of the opinion that in 96 only Williams was better than Ferrari, by a very large margin, but still, only Williams was better, IMHO. Benetton was probably a close third, but if it was better than the Ferrari, it wasn't by much and probably close enough to where Schumacher could make the difference against Alesi and an aging Berger. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

So, yea, Schumacher drove top 3 gear in 96 too, if not top 2.

Edited by Birelman, 17 July 2010 - 04:41.


#3442 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,012 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 17 July 2010 - 03:09

Ferrari's #1 policy made the 1996 Ferrari look worse than it actually was, as Irvine couldn't get the setups work for him at all and as a consequence was often nowhere. The 1996 Ferrari was pretty quick under it's #1 driver, but had a lot of unreliabilty problems.
Everything which I have marked in bold is pure speculation there is no real prove for it.


I still fail to see how thats speculation.

1. Irvine didn't get much time in the car because of Ferrari's number 1 policy.
2. Because Irvine hardly got any time in the car he couldn't get it setup correct for him.
3. Because he didn't get the car to his liking his performance suffered.
4. Because his performance was bad the Ferrari looked worse than it was capable of.

Unfortunately, despite all this stuff being known (even at the time), IE performances were being used as a measuring stick of where the car should be if any other driver was in MS's car. It was bull crap, and a time when idiots actually thought that drivers (Senna, Schumacher etc) could actually get more speed out of the car then the car was capable of.

As the years went on, we saw Irvine get a lot closer to the front as he was giving more time in the car, yet MS only got a little bit closer as the car improved relative to the opposition. In other words, had the performance gap between MS and EI stayed the same in their four years together as it was in 96, MS would have dominated 98 and 99. But he didn't, and it shows that IE 96 performance does not reflect the cars real speed.


#3443 Birelman

Birelman
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 04:22

I still fail to see how thats speculation.

1. Irvine didn't get much time in the car because of Ferrari's number 1 policy.
2. Because Irvine hardly got any time in the car he couldn't get it setup correct for him.
3. Because he didn't get the car to his liking his performance suffered.
4. Because his performance was bad the Ferrari looked worse than it was capable of.

Unfortunately, despite all this stuff being known (even at the time), IE performances were being used as a measuring stick of where the car should be if any other driver was in MS's car. It was bull crap, and a time when idiots actually thought that drivers (Senna, Schumacher etc) could actually get more speed out of the car then the car was capable of.

As the years went on, we saw Irvine get a lot closer to the front as he was giving more time in the car, yet MS only got a little bit closer as the car improved relative to the opposition. In other words, had the performance gap between MS and EI stayed the same in their four years together as it was in 96, MS would have dominated 98 and 99. But he didn't, and it shows that IE 96 performance does not reflect the cars real speed.

YAY!! Somebody with brains!!! :up:

#3444 Simon Says

Simon Says
  • Member

  • 2,163 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 17 July 2010 - 04:30

Have you ever watched F1 at the beginning when Schumacher entered in this sport. He was driving for Jordan if I am not mistaken, and also Ferrari in 1996 was not best third car on the grid. Both Williams were better that year and Mclarens in most of the races. I can agree with you if you mean the cars in which he won WDC. Till now I know only one driver who began the career in the best three cars and in one of the best F1 team in the history of the F1 (Mclaren) this was Hamilton all other drivers went trough hard selection in smaller teams with cars which were at the back of the grid. I like Hamilton I think that he is one of the best drivers on the grid if not the best in current rules. I have only one dilemma for all the new stars in the grid is there anyone who will dominate in the F1 like Schumacher, Senna, Prost or Fangio did?


Put anyone in a car that has a massive advantage over the rest and they'll dominate.

Before 2009, Jenson was crap and nobody wanted to sign him for 2009. Yet, Jenson had the most dominate 1st half of the season ever in the history of F1, not even MS was that dominate :wave:


Edited by Simon Says, 17 July 2010 - 04:33.


#3445 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 05:05

Put anyone in a car that has a massive advantage over the rest and they'll dominate.

Before 2009, Jenson was crap and nobody wanted to sign him for 2009. Yet, Jenson had the most dominate 1st half of the season ever in the history of F1, not even MS was that dominate :wave:


I meant dominant like how many GP races did driver win and how many WDC did he win and yes Schumacher was a dominant driver from 1994 till the end of 2004 like Valentino Rossi is in Moto GP. Every win in WDC is the combination of driver and the car itself but to say that Schumacher in his all career drove the best cars is delusional and if you want to say that Schumacher was nobody than you are entitled to your opinion but then again you will not be taken seriously.

#3446 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 05:15

Well, you know, that wasn't the beggining of Formula 1. But anyway, actually, Schumacher only qualified in that Jordan once, at Spa, and yes, I remember the race weekend well, and I remember Jordan that year. Schumacher stepped in for Bertrandt Gachot, who? Yes, Bertrandt Gachot, and Gachot used to go very well in that Jordan too, it wasn't completely useless by any means, probably comparable in relative performance to today's Toro Rosso. What would you call that 96 Ferrari's position performance wise? not top 3? Who was better? besides Williams? Benetton (debatable)? and who else? the 96 grenadelike McLarens? :rotfl: Those Maccas stank to high hell, it started to improve around the end of the year, but far from competitive against the Ferrari. Anyone else? nope!

I'm of the opinion that in 96 only Williams was better than Ferrari, by a very large margin, but still, only Williams was better, IMHO. Benetton was probably a close third, but if it was better than the Ferrari, it wasn't by much and probably close enough to where Schumacher could make the difference against Alesi and an aging Berger. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

So, yea, Schumacher drove top 3 gear in 96 too, if not top 2.

Can you be 100 % shore that this is the case what if Schumacher was so better than the rest that the gap to the front runners was smaller than normal so the car looked much better than it was.

#3447 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 05:19

I still fail to see how thats speculation.

1. Irvine didn't get much time in the car because of Ferrari's number 1 policy.
2. Because Irvine hardly got any time in the car he couldn't get it setup correct for him.
3. Because he didn't get the car to his liking his performance suffered.
4. Because his performance was bad the Ferrari looked worse than it was capable of.

Unfortunately, despite all this stuff being known (even at the time), IE performances were being used as a measuring stick of where the car should be if any other driver was in MS's car. It was bull crap, and a time when idiots actually thought that drivers (Senna, Schumacher etc) could actually get more speed out of the car then the car was capable of.

As the years went on, we saw Irvine get a lot closer to the front as he was giving more time in the car, yet MS only got a little bit closer as the car improved relative to the opposition. In other words, had the performance gap between MS and EI stayed the same in their four years together as it was in 96, MS would have dominated 98 and 99. But he didn't, and it shows that IE 96 performance does not reflect the cars real speed.


The answer from Big Block him self:

Regs the bold part:

Not just mine, but you're right it's only speculation. Fact is though that EI did get only fraction of the testing time and with hindsight we know that the whole operation revolved around Schumacher anyway. Which means, testing or no testing, they at Ferrari didn't give a toss about what Irvine asked for, unless of course Schumacher coincidentally asked for the same.

So hence the speculation that the 96 Ferrari was way better than thought at the time, as Irvine's performances can't really be used for any sort of yardstick. More popular speculation at the time was that Schumacher simply was a full second or thereabouts per lap faster than any other driver on the grid, but somehow I have a hard time believing that one today. :cool:

#3448 slaveceru

slaveceru
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 17 July 2010 - 05:20

Regs the bold part:

Not just mine, but you're right it's only speculation. Fact is though that EI did get only fraction of the testing time and with hindsight we know that the whole operation revolved around Schumacher anyway. Which means, testing or no testing, they at Ferrari didn't give a toss about what Irvine asked for, unless of course Schumacher coincidentally asked for the same.

So hence the speculation that the 96 Ferrari was way better than thought at the time, as Irvine's performances can't really be used for any sort of yardstick. More popular speculation at the time was that Schumacher simply was a full second or thereabouts per lap faster than any other driver on the grid, but somehow I have a hard time believing that one today. :cool:



#3449 cheapracer

cheapracer
  • Member

  • 10,388 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 17 July 2010 - 06:38

YAY!! Somebody with who agrees with me :up:


Fixed.

Ok Birelman, Man and Jazza and Co -

Why is it that every team, team manager, team owners - in fact everyone involved in the sport and including most ex F1 drivers consider Schumacher simply the best at that time and one of the best of all time? I think myself I've seen but one list where MS wasn't in the top 5 (that list was British - surprise surprise :lol: ).

Why is it at the time people such as Ron Dennis, Frank Williams said he was the best (hell I even have film of Briatore embarrassingly saying he is the best while standing in front of his team drivers Alesi and Berger in 1996 :blush:).

What is it that a bunch of forumers who have never raced a car in their lives know that all the insiders who do it for a living don't?

Hmmmm?




#3450 Big Block 8

Big Block 8
  • Member

  • 2,423 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 17 July 2010 - 07:25

I think you intercepted Big Block's point at the wrong post. He doesn't mean to say Irvine is better, or that Ferrari shouldn't have run the team that way, or anything of the sorts. He's simply stating that Irvine's preformance can't be taken as a useful measuring stick against Schumacher's performance, or the overall performance of the 96 Ferrari. Everyone knows Eddie Irvine stank, he was no competition for Schumacher, that's nothing new.


Yup, that's what I meant.