Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 9 votes

Michael Schumacher - Part III


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
2749 replies to this topic

#2451 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 02 December 2012 - 20:07

And IEHO you're wrong. The races since 2011 have proved that. And you can't compare MSC's first carreer to his second. End of story.


No, you are right, one cannot compare his first career to his second. During his first career many many things were tilted in his favor, but that's not to say that he didn't have great drives, because he did. But during his comeback the playing field was level and he had a teammate that didn't play second fiddle to him and for the most part, got the better of him.

Edited by jj2728, 02 December 2012 - 20:12.


Advertisement

#2452 Jejking

Jejking
  • Member

  • 2,318 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 02 December 2012 - 20:23

No, you are right, one cannot compare his first career to his second. During his first career many many things were tilted in his favor, but that's not to say that he didn't have great drives, because he did. But during his comeback the playing field was level and he had a teammate that didn't play second fiddle to him and for the most part, got the better of him.

I admit that the stars aligned for him in his first carreer but he had a very good hand in that, worked his ass off and drove admirably. During his comeback, the stars didn't align for him (in time) but teammates never had to play second fiddle, not in his first or second carreer. Every GP weekend you have to prove yourself in that world. And he did a very good job at that, Rosberg certainly didn't get the better off him and beat him in the most doubtable way possible: finishing 2011 ahead on retirements on Schumachers side, and the same for 2012.

#2453 Rikhart

Rikhart
  • Member

  • 580 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 December 2012 - 20:54

I was never a big fan of Schumacher, but I rooted for him because he had the balls to come back and tackle people half his age, and not doing that badly at all. Now, if haters doubt a driver who consistently riled a certain senna in his prime, considered the best driver of all time, you have to doubt their sanity :)

#2454 Claudius

Claudius
  • Member

  • 2,277 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 02 December 2012 - 21:14

I was never a big fan of Schumacher, but I rooted for him because he had the balls to come back and tackle people half his age, and not doing that badly at all. Now, if haters doubt a driver who consistently riled a certain senna in his prime, considered the best driver of all time, you have to doubt their sanity :)


:up:
Well put!




#2455 Number62

Number62
  • Member

  • 493 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 02 December 2012 - 21:38

No, but when the only interest a person seems to show in the sport is constantly denigrating a drivers achievements over 21 years and stating that a 7 time world champion in your opinion 'was never that good' it does beg questions. Your view of Schumacher over his whole career is anything but balanced.

You don't have to rate him as the greatest driver of all time, or even like him, but to have witnessed some of his classic drives from the 90's and simply state he was 'never that good' makes me wonder if you actually watched any of those races at all.


You need to look again at JJ's posting history.

He demonstrates a very broad church and an informed range of opinions which suggests an academic study of f1 or (ahem) a man of a certain age.


#2456 exmayol

exmayol
  • Member

  • 551 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 03 December 2012 - 00:23

You need to look again at JJ's posting history.

He demonstrates a very broad church and an informed range of opinions which suggests an academic study of f1 or (ahem) a man of a certain age.


Academic study does not prevent heavy bias which shows in majority of his posts in this particular thread.

#2457 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:38

I admit that the stars aligned for him in his first carreer but he had a very good hand in that, worked his ass off and drove admirably. During his comeback, the stars didn't align for him (in time) but teammates never had to play second fiddle, not in his first or second carreer. Every GP weekend you have to prove yourself in that world. And he did a very good job at that, Rosberg certainly didn't get the better off him and beat him in the most doubtable way possible: finishing 2011 ahead on retirements on Schumachers side, and the same for 2012.



Michael did not "fail" himself, but rather Mercedes did...

We'll never know what might have happened if Schu had a top 3 car, mixing it up with Seb, Fred, and Lewis. He certainly had the speed, of course, but it really would have been a fun story.

Going into Canada, he would have been right there or leading the championship had his car did not the failures it had.

Edited by George Costanza, 03 December 2012 - 01:42.


#2458 Raelene

Raelene
  • Member

  • 5,312 posts
  • Joined: April 99

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:43

Am i the only one thinking, that the driver´s contribution to the development of the car changed "a little bit " after F1-rules changed from unlimited testing to barely any testing at all?



spot on - I can't beliee people bring up that MSC couldn't dvevlop the car so he was never that good - I don't think some people actually followed F1 back in his first career - if they did - they would never spew such rubbish - knowing the difference....

#2459 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 03 December 2012 - 01:51

spot on - I can't beliee people bring up that MSC couldn't dvevlop the car so he was never that good - I don't think some people actually followed F1 back in his first career - if they did - they would never spew such rubbish - knowing the difference....


He was very good at car setup, arugably, behind Prost and Senna in the department of car setup. But as Ross said, he would drive around the problem more often than not, (early days at Ferrari (1996-1997) he did that quite often as testing at the test track).



Advertisement

#2460 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 03 December 2012 - 02:58

I'd say that's an accurate assessment, but it will ring hollow amongst the fan base. And I too was of the belief that he would do much better than 1 podium in 3 years' time. Sure he had a run of bad luck, but that happens to every driver at one time or another. Then there was the blame game, first it was the Pirellis, then it was the car, then a combination of tyre/car. Anything except the man behind the wheel.

I think both you and Slategray are sidestepping the question.

I am just trying to understand, what is your opinion about Schumacher's car development skills, his technical feedback and his leadership abilities ? Since you two seem to not agree with "fans" view that he was very good in these aspects, where exactly do you stand on this subject ?

#2461 SUPRAF1

SUPRAF1
  • Member

  • 365 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:05

Anyone got links to good Schumi tribute videos on YT? :)

#2462 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 03 December 2012 - 07:09

Michael said right from the start of his econd carreer that he planed to do 2-3 seasons, so teambuilding had always to focus on Rosberg, because Rosberg was the younger driver.

#2463 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,774 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:48

I think both you and Slategray are sidestepping the question.

I am just trying to understand, what is your opinion about Schumacher's car development skills, his technical feedback and his leadership abilities ? Since you two seem to not agree with "fans" view that he was very good in these aspects, where exactly do you stand on this subject ?


I think his car development skills were good, nothing extraordinary though. His work ethic was second to none and he had the advantage of having the dream team around him at Ferrari. Endless testing, virtually unlimited resources and preferential treatment from Bridgestone helped too, but teams getting special tyre treatment is/was nothing new to the sport. He was in the right place at the right time, much like Vettel is now.
Someone mentioned that the driver's contribution to developmental testing has changed a bit and that some of us spew rubbish when we say he was never that good and/or that his skills as a development driver were good but not extraordinary. The rules changed for everyone, not just Schumacher correct? And didn't someone also mention that he had the capability, as per Ross Brawn, to drive around problems more often than not?
So in answer to your question, and as I said, he was good, but nothing extraordinary. His 7 titles and 91 wins should qualify him to be in the all time top 10 F1 drivers based on the stats alone. But I never cared for him as a driver, and that is MHO. He had teammates who played second fiddle to him whether people want to believe that or not and he resorted to bully-boy tactics on track when things didn't go his way. You see this is the Michael Schumacher thread, not the Michael Schumacher fan club thread and those of us who do not agree with the fan club consensus are more often than not accused of trolling, accused of having not witnessed F1 during his career, being jealous of him, and/or having no knowledge of F1 in general, oh yeah and I forgot, we spew rubbish. Well, he made a comeback that IMHO was at best lacklustre, 1 podium in 3 years from a 7x wdc is hardly the stuff of legend is it? But I'm sure the fan base will always make excuses for him and most likely throw it back at us 'haters' that we know not what we talk of.....

Edited by jj2728, 03 December 2012 - 10:51.


#2464 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,204 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 10:51

Anyone got links to good Schumi tribute videos on YT? :)




#2465 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 03 December 2012 - 22:12

I admit that the stars aligned for him in his first carreer but he had a very good hand in that, worked his ass off and drove admirably. During his comeback, the stars didn't align for him (in time) but teammates never had to play second fiddle, not in his first or second carreer. Every GP weekend you have to prove yourself in that world. And he did a very good job at that, Rosberg certainly didn't get the better off him and beat him in the most doubtable way possible: finishing 2011 ahead on retirements on Schumachers side, and the same for 2012.


it took almost 10 years for that. Schumacher only had really a top machinery after 2000, untill then, he never really had the fastest car.

PS: to all reasonable posters in this thread: can't you all just ignore's JJ2728 regurgitation, please?! I won't even question him or debate or whatever. Everyone is entittled to his opinion. I just am tired of his typical "views" in here. Yeah, we know what he thinks about it, no need to keep repeating it over and over again, though.

Edited by BetaVersion, 03 December 2012 - 22:19.


#2466 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 00:27

it took almost 10 years for that. Schumacher only had really a top machinery after 2000, untill then, he never really had the fastest car.

PS: to all reasonable posters in this thread: can't you all just ignore's JJ2728 regurgitation, please?! I won't even question him or debate or whatever. Everyone is entittled to his opinion. I just am tired of his typical "views" in here. Yeah, we know what he thinks about it, no need to keep repeating it over and over again, though.




WHAT?

Wich car Michael drove that was not capable of winning races?

1991 Jordan and Benneton - Old Nelson won for Benneton while Andrea de Cesaris was about to win in Spa
1992 The second best car, a win in wich Michael was lapping at the same rtace pace as his teamate, till he spun. Lucky win.
1993 The second best car, Senna won FIVE races in an inferior car
1994 The best car
1995 The best car
1996 An unreliable Ferrari altough a very fast car, capable of multiple wins
1997 The second best car
1998 The second best car
1999 The best car, even Irvine would have won a WDC in it!

Edited by DUCKTOWN, 04 December 2012 - 00:47.


#2467 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 04 December 2012 - 00:37

WHAT?

Wich car Michael drove that was not capable of winning races?

1990 Jordan and Benneton - Old Nelson won for Benneton while Andrea de Cesaris was about to win in Spa
1991 The third best car Michael won a race in wich he was lapping as fast as his teamate and spun
1992 The second best car
1993 The second best car, Senna won FIVE races in an inferior car
1994 The best car
1995 The best car
1996 An unreliable Ferrari altough a very fast car, capable of multiple wins
1997 The second best car
1998 The second best car
1999 The best car, even Irvine would have won a WDC in it!

Schumacher's debut was in 1991, so I'm not quite sure what is going on with this post..

Would also dispute the claim that the Benetton was better than the Mclaren in 1993, and better than the Williams in either 1994 or 1995. The 1997 car was about as far away from the Williams as Ferrari were from the front this year, yet Schumacher exploited absolutely everything he could and kept the Championship alive until the final round. Of course in 1999 he was injured, so it is impossible to judge how that season turned out, although you have to remember that Hakkinen threw away two victories (Imola and Monza) when under no pressure, and Mclaren made a spate of tactical mistakes throughout the year.

#2468 DUCKTOWN

DUCKTOWN
  • New Member

  • 15 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:06

Schumacher's debut was in 1991, so I'm not quite sure what is going on with this post..

Would also dispute the claim that the Benetton was better than the Mclaren in 1993, and better than the Williams in either 1994 or 1995. The 1997 car was about as far away from the Williams as Ferrari were from the front this year, yet Schumacher exploited absolutely everything he could and kept the Championship alive until the final round. Of course in 1999 he was injured, so it is impossible to judge how that season turned out, although you have to remember that Hakkinen threw away two victories (Imola and Monza) when under no pressure, and Mclaren made a spate of tactical mistakes throughout the year.



"Schumacher's debut was in 1991, so I'm not quite sure what is going on with this post.."

Fixed. I was going to put Jordan and Benneton together and them i splited.



"Would also dispute the claim that the Benetton was better than the Mclaren in 1993"

For most of the season Benneton was way better than Mclaren. The 1993 season is available on Youtube. For those who had not the chance to see how "equal the cars were", watch Senna figthing Prost, Michael and Brundle in Silverstone:



"and better than the Williams in either 1994 or 1995"

Benetton was way better/faster than Williams for most of the season in 1994 and way better in 1995


"The 1997 car was about as far away from the Williams as Ferrari were from the front this year, yet Schumacher exploited absolutely everything he could and kept the Championship alive until the final round"

Agree, but Alonso had to fight against Vettel and Hamilton. Senna, in 1993 was leading the champ in a very inferior machine. Against Prost. Michael had JV...


All in all we are talking about great cars. Michaels fans have no idea what a really bad car is. A Minardi, a Toleman, HRT. Even Mercedes was able to win races and score a pole position (and the other car , driving by Nico one tenth slower than the pole).


#2469 Jan.W

Jan.W
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:19


Schumacher schooling Senna in the rain at barcelona 92 :

http://www.youtube.c...o...der&list=UL


Benneton hadn't any TC at this time, contrary to Williams and Mclaren.

Edited by Jan.W, 04 December 2012 - 01:22.


#2470 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:23

Schumacher schooling Senna in the rain at barcelona 92 :

http://www.youtube.c...o...der&list=UL


Benneton hadn't any TC at this time, contrary to Williams and Mclaren.


McLaren also hadn´t a TC in 92, but perhaps you´re confusing this with the first few races of 93.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 December 2012 - 01:23.


#2471 LiJu914

LiJu914
  • Member

  • 1,776 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 01:31

WHAT?

Wich car Michael drove that was not capable of winning races?


1990 Jordan and Benneton - Old Nelson won for Benneton while Andrea de Cesaris was about to win in Spa
1991 The third best car Michael won a race in wich he was lapping as fast as his teamate and spun
1992 The second best car
1993 The second best car, Senna won FIVE races in an inferior car
1994 The best car
1995 The best car
1996 An unreliable Ferrari altough a very fast car, capable of multiple wins
1997 The second best car
1998 The second best car
1999 The best car, even Irvine would have won a WDC in it!


It´s always amusing, when a user starts his reply with capital letters - to express his overwhelming indignation - only to proceed with utter tripe afterwards.

Edited by LiJu914, 04 December 2012 - 01:32.


#2472 Vic Vega

Vic Vega
  • Member

  • 192 posts
  • Joined: March 06

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:00

1996 An unreliable Ferrari altough a very fast car, capable of multiple wins

Yes! It was so fast that at the press conference after Spa Villeneuve was amazed how Schumacher was capable of going so fast in such a car.

Schumacher's gap in Q, in relation to a car on PP (Williams in all three cases), in the races he won was: Spain +0.937 s; Spa +1.204 s; Monza +0.577.

1999 The best car, even Irvine would have won a WDC in it!

The very same Ferrari that locked the front row of the grid only 1 time in comparison to McLaren's 5? Or the very same Ferrari that was on pole only 3 times during the season in comparison to McLaren's 11?

Hakkinen made mistakes that lead to DNF from a commanding lead (Imola and Monza) and also Coulthard spun him at Zeltweg in 1st lap. Even that wasn't enough for Irvine to contend so he was let through to win by both Salo (Hockenheim) and Schumacher (Sepang).

"and better than the Williams in either 1994 or 1995"

Benetton was way better/faster than Williams for most of the season in 1994 and way better in 1995

But of course! The reason pole position ratio in 1995 was 12:4 in favour of Williams is because Coulthard and Hill were such an amazing qualifiers, at least in comparison to Schumacher.

Rest of the fallacies, like the ones where Benetton was way better than McLaren in 1993, are even too ridiculous to warrant a reply.

Edited by Vic Vega, 04 December 2012 - 02:08.


#2473 Jan.W

Jan.W
  • Member

  • 169 posts
  • Joined: November 02

Posted 04 December 2012 - 02:05

McLaren also hadn´t a TC in 92, but perhaps you´re confusing this with the first few races of 93.


Yeah my mistake, you're right. :up:

#2474 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:05

I see the car issue being raised again...

Ok here's my take....

1994: Benetton had the better car for most part, UNTIL second half when Williams sorted the issues out, then it was slightly better in speed and pace.

1995: Williams had the better and quicker car, look at the pole positions, DC who isn't the best qualifier, had five. Hill had 7, right? B195 was quite nervous at the rear and could slip anytime (Imola 1995 when Schu hit the wall hard in Practice I believe) still he was showing his skills that year why he became the 1994 World Champion, his race craft was legendary that season (Spa '95 being a hallmark and Spain '95 was quite good) DC and Hill were simply not good enough for that car. If Schu was in the '95 Williams, it would be like 2002 all over.

1996: Worst Ferrari he drove (Spain 96; enough said, no driver except for Fernando Alonso in Sepang '12 can pull a victory in a car at the start of the season).

1997: Williams AND Benetton were better cars like this year, McLaren and Red Bull were clearly better. Don't put off JV, he was a very good driver, but he made it tough on himself in his second year. If he were at his 2000-2001 level in '97, he would have had it better. But '97 Schumacher was supreme much like Alonso in '12.

1998: MIka and McLaren by far the better car. Schumacher felt, he had a quick car that year and would have won the championship, IMO if it was not for SPA 1998 (Which was going to be better than any Spa drive he put forth including Spa 95). He was what, 2 seconds faster? Japan was also a blunder on his part, but he would have won it? perhaps.

1999: McLaren and Ferrari were roughly equal. Mac Faster in qualy as shown.

2000: McLaren was the better and faster car. Look it up, 14 out of 17 faster laps..... Prime Schumacher in 2000.

2001: Best car.

2002: Obvious.

2003: Ferrari was slightlybetter than on Williams and Mac, but the tires were the difference in speed for Mac and Williams

2004: obvious...

2005: Tires.

2006: Alonso had the better car, I would say, or equal after Monaco.

Edited by George Costanza, 04 December 2012 - 04:20.


#2475 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:07

And to say Michael was not a good qualifier is very silly. Had the old format (12 lap) was in place through 2006, he would have 80 poles by then.

Edited by George Costanza, 04 December 2012 - 04:16.


#2476 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:32

1996: Worst Ferrari he drove


Really? I'd say the car he drove in 2005. I don't get this common belief the 1996 Ferrari was rubbish when in fact it qualified 3rd and 4th in its first race, not to mention Michael Schumacher never qualified lower than 4th in it, something he didn't repeat in 1997. I guess the illusion stems from Irvine's season performance, yet he wasn't given the opportunities to test the car like Schumi did, particularly after outqualifying him in Melbourne!

#2477 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 04:42

Really? I'd say the car he drove in 2005. I don't get this common belief the 1996 Ferrari was rubbish when in fact it qualified 3rd and 4th in its first race, not to mention Michael Schumacher never qualified lower than 4th in it, something he didn't repeat in 1997. I guess the illusion stems from Irvine's season performance, yet he wasn't given the opportunities to test the car like Schumi did, particularly after outqualifying him in Melbourne!


The 2005 Ferrari, as shown by Hungary, was an extremely quick car. He was nearly a second faster than the Renaults and the McLarens but that was because the tires were quite subpar compared to the Michelin runners. Had B'stone was equal, it would be another 2002-2004 season for Schu. The Hungary GP was a one off weekend where the tires were right. Plus he finished 3rd in the championship in 1996 and in 2005. I have no doubt that he would have won in 2005 again, had the tires were on equal.

For example, in Hungary, Schu was ahead of Kimi by 1.009 seconds. Ahead of Alonso by 1.259, and he was even ahead of his own team mate, Rubens by 1.276. An incredible lap it was. He was probably running light of course, but that does not take away how fast the lap truly was.

Edited by George Costanza, 04 December 2012 - 04:57.


#2478 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:05

The 2005 Ferrari, as shown by Hungary, was an extremely quick car. He was nearly a second faster than the Renaults and the McLarens but that was because the tires were quite subpar compared to the Michelin runners. Had B'stone was equal, it would be another 2002-2004 season for Schu. The Hungary GP was a one off weekend where the tires were right. Plus he finished 3rd in the championship in 1996 and in 2005. I have no doubt that he would have won in 2005 again, had the tires were on equal.

For example, in Hungary, Schu was ahead of Kimi by 1.009 seconds. Ahead of Alonso by 1.259, and he was even ahead of his own team mate, Rubens by 1.276. An incredible lap it was. He was probably running light of course, but that does not take away how fast the lap truly was.


The tyres were still a component of the car and in this case the bridgestones were designed to Ferrari's preferences. Its like saying Arrows would have won races if only they didn't have such a crap engine. In the end the car was slow and the worst Ferrari Schumi drove.

#2479 vlado

vlado
  • Member

  • 191 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:07

another 2002-2004 season for Schu.

Wasn't the drastic change in tire rules in 2005 meant to prevent exactly that from happening ?

Advertisement

#2480 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:09

Wasn't the drastic change in tire rules in 2005 meant to prevent exactly that from happening ?


No, they were intended to slow the cars down, between 2003 and 2004 they had gained quite a ridiculous amount of speed due to tyres.

#2481 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,087 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:09

The tyres were still a component of the car and in this case the bridgestones were designed to Ferrari's preferences. Its like saying Arrows would have won races if only they didn't have such a crap engine. In the end the car was slow and the worst Ferrari Schumi drove.


Yes, but the FIA rule changes, which significanly hampered Brdigestone for the reasons it allowed, prevented the whole package from being the highest performance.

Plus, you also need to take account in, how good Schu was back in 1996 compared in 2005. 1996, he was quicker as he was in his prime self, whereas in 2005, he made some mistakes that he would have never made back then, but he truly did push the '05 car to its absolute limits to scrap points, perhaps overdoing it at times.

Edited by George Costanza, 04 December 2012 - 05:10.


#2482 Zippel

Zippel
  • Member

  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:19

Yes, but the FIA rule changes, which significanly hampered Brdigestone for the reasons it allowed, prevented the whole package from being the highest performance.


So did the FIA's banning of beryllium prevent McLaren-Mercedes from continuing their late 1990s form into the early 00s

Plus, you also need to take account in, how good Schu was back in 1996 compared in 2005. 1996, he was quicker as he was in his prime self, whereas in 2005, he made some mistakes that he would have never made back then, but he truly did push the '05 car to its absolute limits to scrap points.


No doubt he was better in 96 than 05 (still made mistakes back then (Monaco)) but not enough that the 1996 car was overall worse than 2005. The Ferrari still felt more competitive in 96 than in 05, showing speed in most conditions.

#2483 vlado

vlado
  • Member

  • 191 posts
  • Joined: September 06

Posted 04 December 2012 - 05:26

He might not have been the fastest driver, but to achieve what he did over such a long period of time you have to admit that he is an amazing racer.. I think the greatest one so far, and I will hold that opinion until I see someone else come even remotely close to the his achievements.

No one here can even conceive to imagine what it takes to win one Formula 1 championship, let alone doing it 7 times, and coming very close on at least 2 more occasions. All I can see is that it seems extremely difficult, and it doesn't just happen out of pure luck.. or aligned stars.. or whatever other outside/universal forces there might be at play.

So.. the fastest driver ? That one is an endless argument.. but the greatest driver ? Well, that one is pretty obvious.

Edited by vlado, 04 December 2012 - 05:26.


#2484 SparkPlug

SparkPlug
  • Member

  • 491 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 04 December 2012 - 08:58

I think his car development skills were good, nothing extraordinary though. His work ethic was second to none and he had the advantage of having the dream team around him at Ferrari. Endless testing, virtually unlimited resources and preferential treatment from Bridgestone helped too, but teams getting special tyre treatment is/was nothing new to the sport. He was in the right place at the right time, much like Vettel is now.
Someone mentioned that the driver's contribution to developmental testing has changed a bit and that some of us spew rubbish when we say he was never that good and/or that his skills as a development driver were good but not extraordinary. The rules changed for everyone, not just Schumacher correct? And didn't someone also mention that he had the capability, as per Ross Brawn, to drive around problems more often than not?
So in answer to your question, and as I said, he was good, but nothing extraordinary. His 7 titles and 91 wins should qualify him to be in the all time top 10 F1 drivers based on the stats alone. But I never cared for him as a driver, and that is MHO. He had teammates who played second fiddle to him whether people want to believe that or not and he resorted to bully-boy tactics on track when things didn't go his way. You see this is the Michael Schumacher thread, not the Michael Schumacher fan club thread and those of us who do not agree with the fan club consensus are more often than not accused of trolling, accused of having not witnessed F1 during his career, being jealous of him, and/or having no knowledge of F1 in general, oh yeah and I forgot, we spew rubbish. Well, he made a comeback that IMHO was at best lacklustre, 1 podium in 3 years from a 7x wdc is hardly the stuff of legend is it? But I'm sure the fan base will always make excuses for him and most likely throw it back at us 'haters' that we know not what we talk of.....

I think the parts in bold are relevant to our discussion about Schumacher and his team building skills and his car development skills. I was quite interested in this accusation that Schumacher was merely "good" in helping with car development, which, I assume, is implying that he was probably at the same level as most of his contemporaries in this department. I say this, since I firmly believe that a racing driver with, say a few seasons of experience under him would probably also be acknowledged by the engineers as having the capability to give correct feedback and assess the car properly.

However, the comments from people who have worked with him seem to point to a completely different point of view from yours. Here's some examples :

Ross Brawn on his team building skills - which in your opinion are hardly there at all :-

"He is without doubt the best driver I have had the privilege of working with. His strength for me lies in his bond with the team. His solidarity with them is absolutely essential, since it makes everyone in the team try automatically to give their best. From a technical point of view, Michael is also always up to speed when we are at the development stage with a new car. He takes the trouble to keep himself informed, and that gives us extra motivation because he is so on the ball.

Paolo Martinelli " He can describe the behaviour of the engine at every point of the track. He knows what his priorities are, and doesnt ask for everything at once. And if the car isnt to his liking, he still knows how to get the best out of it because he knows how to adapt his way of doing things"

Rory Byrne " He can drive very consistently, every lap to within a tenth of a second, which is invaluable. He can describe precisely the feel of the car, and knows what he wants,' "He is really a tremendous help for every engineer, because he enjoys test driving and has an eye for those crucial details which can make all the difference. And he also has this ability to get 100 percent out of the car in only a few laps, and to evaluate it precisely. Thats ideal for an engineer, particularly when you're developing a new car because it's extremely important to understand the weak points of the old car in order to move forward. I know immediately what my new car can do. Michael is very good at this, he can help us to pinpoint exactly those areas which have to be improved. And he is a constant source of new ideas about how this can be done. He loves all the technical aspects, and wants to understand everything."

Here's Ross Brawn, comparing Schumacher with the likes of Button and Barrichello, both of whom are acclaimed across many teams as being very good at development and testing in Formula 1 :

Q. How will it be different to optimise the car for Michael to the drivers you had in the car last year?

RB: Michael is very precise in describing what's going on and what he wants, and what he feels is needed. He is very clear on what he feels and what he thinks the direction is for the changes to come. That has always been notable about Michael in his career. That is probably the most noticeable difference but both Rubens (Barrichello) and Jenson (Button) gave very good information on the car, so it was never a problem. It's that Michael is perhaps more precise in his opinions and what is happening.


And, most recently, Nick Fry, who inspite of being at Mercedes has been quite vocal in his views against MS

"Michael is, for me, quite remarkable," added Fry. "Even this weekend, the level of feedback that he gives is something that I have never seen before - and that is just not in the debriefs.

"When you have the headphones on you hear amazing things – and in qualifying he was driving around almost giving a commentary. The FIA, who also listens, was also very impressed that a driver can do that."


This is just a small summary of some of the quotes and comments I was able to find in just about an hours work. Do you think these comments from some of the most intelligent men to have ever worked in Formula 1, imply that Schumacher was 'just' good in car development ? If you have other proofs to state the contrary about his car development skills, please present them, since you seem to be utterly convinced that he was not great at either car development or team building.


#2485 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:30

I think the parts in bold are relevant to our discussion about Schumacher and his team building skills and his car development skills. I was quite interested in this accusation that Schumacher was merely "good" in helping with car development, which, I assume, is implying that he was probably at the same level as most of his contemporaries in this department. I say this, since I firmly believe that a racing driver with, say a few seasons of experience under him would probably also be acknowledged by the engineers as having the capability to give correct feedback and assess the car properly.

However, the comments from people who have worked with him seem to point to a completely different point of view from yours. Here's some examples :

Ross Brawn on his team building skills - which in your opinion are hardly there at all :-

"He is without doubt the best driver I have had the privilege of working with. His strength for me lies in his bond with the team. His solidarity with them is absolutely essential, since it makes everyone in the team try automatically to give their best. From a technical point of view, Michael is also always up to speed when we are at the development stage with a new car. He takes the trouble to keep himself informed, and that gives us extra motivation because he is so on the ball.

Paolo Martinelli " He can describe the behaviour of the engine at every point of the track. He knows what his priorities are, and doesnt ask for everything at once. And if the car isnt to his liking, he still knows how to get the best out of it because he knows how to adapt his way of doing things"

Rory Byrne " He can drive very consistently, every lap to within a tenth of a second, which is invaluable. He can describe precisely the feel of the car, and knows what he wants,' "He is really a tremendous help for every engineer, because he enjoys test driving and has an eye for those crucial details which can make all the difference. And he also has this ability to get 100 percent out of the car in only a few laps, and to evaluate it precisely. Thats ideal for an engineer, particularly when you're developing a new car because it's extremely important to understand the weak points of the old car in order to move forward. I know immediately what my new car can do. Michael is very good at this, he can help us to pinpoint exactly those areas which have to be improved. And he is a constant source of new ideas about how this can be done. He loves all the technical aspects, and wants to understand everything."

Here's Ross Brawn, comparing Schumacher with the likes of Button and Barrichello, both of whom are acclaimed across many teams as being very good at development and testing in Formula 1 :

Q. How will it be different to optimise the car for Michael to the drivers you had in the car last year?

RB: Michael is very precise in describing what's going on and what he wants, and what he feels is needed. He is very clear on what he feels and what he thinks the direction is for the changes to come. That has always been notable about Michael in his career. That is probably the most noticeable difference but both Rubens (Barrichello) and Jenson (Button) gave very good information on the car, so it was never a problem. It's that Michael is perhaps more precise in his opinions and what is happening.


And, most recently, Nick Fry, who inspite of being at Mercedes has been quite vocal in his views against MS

"Michael is, for me, quite remarkable," added Fry. "Even this weekend, the level of feedback that he gives is something that I have never seen before - and that is just not in the debriefs.

"When you have the headphones on you hear amazing things – and in qualifying he was driving around almost giving a commentary. The FIA, who also listens, was also very impressed that a driver can do that."


This is just a small summary of some of the quotes and comments I was able to find in just about an hours work. Do you think these comments from some of the most intelligent men to have ever worked in Formula 1, imply that Schumacher was 'just' good in car development ? If you have other proofs to state the contrary about his car development skills, please present them, since you seem to be utterly convinced that he was not great at either car development or team building.


:up: :up: Very nice reference post.

All those quotes, I know about, but couldn't find them if asked. There's another from Pirelli this year. The compliment came prior to Michael's criticism of the tires.


#2486 Jovanotti

Jovanotti
  • Member

  • 2,816 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 10:48

"When you have the headphones on you hear amazing things – and in qualifying he was driving around almost giving a commentary. The FIA, who also listens, was also very impressed that a driver can do that."[/i]

What a pity we never get to hear those things..an exceptional driver for sure :up:

#2487 ali_M

ali_M
  • Member

  • 1,115 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:00

What a pity we never get to hear those things..an exceptional driver for sure :up:


It would seem that one key difference between the Ferrari glory years and this 3yr stint at MGP was that both teams defined their problems. One was able to effectively solve them through engineering, car setup and design, while the other can't seem to do so. Michael himself has said on two occasions that the team realizes what their problems/challenges are. He's confident about this. He as also stated on both occasions is that he's not sure if they can overcome them.

#2488 Massa_f1

Massa_f1
  • Member

  • 3,305 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:27

WHAT?

Wich car Michael drove that was not capable of winning races?

1991 Jordan and Benneton - Old Nelson won for Benneton while Andrea de Cesaris was about to win in Spa
1992 The second best car, a win in wich Michael was lapping at the same rtace pace as his teamate, till he spun. Lucky win.
1993 The second best car, Senna won FIVE races in an inferior car
1994 The best car
1995 The best car
1996 An unreliable Ferrari altough a very fast car, capable of multiple wins
1997 The second best car
1998 The second best car
1999 The best car, even Irvine would have won a WDC in it!



Why do people always say the Benneton was the fastest car in 1995. It was not. The Williams was. DH and DC got schooled that year. It is a well known fact that Frank Williams decided to drop hill after 96 during the 95 season, because he should of done so much better.

Edited by Massa_f1, 04 December 2012 - 11:29.


#2489 DutchCruijff

DutchCruijff
  • Member

  • 933 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 04 December 2012 - 11:47

Capable of multiple wins? Yeah, and under who was that? Put Hakkinen or Hill in that car and I can assure you, multiple wins would not be on the horizon.

#2490 race addicted

race addicted
  • Member

  • 19,478 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:24

What a pity we never get to hear those things..an exceptional driver for sure :up:


He is very talkative, yes, but when I was watching F1 on Canal Digital in '01 and '02, we got A LOT of DC's radio, and he too was always chatting along during races. Talking about the car, but also asking for the laptimes of the others around him.

#2491 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 2,927 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 04 December 2012 - 12:58

I hope one day Schumacher's on board pit radio conversations become available.

If anyone has any, please post them.

#2492 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 20:45

"Would also dispute the claim that the Benetton was better than the Mclaren in 1993"

For most of the season Benneton was way better than Mclaren. The 1993 season is available on Youtube. For those who had not the chance to see how "equal the cars were", watch Senna figthing Prost, Michael and Brundle in Silverstone:

It's not that Benetton was that much faster. It's the driver Schumacher that was way faster than the driver Senna.

In qualifying it was embarassing, 1,5s gap even using Patrese's car, in the GP where Mclaren started to have exact same specification engine.

Later on that season, Hakkinen, as well as Schumacher, showed that Senna wasn't that special by matching him on their first 2 qualifying together.

All in all we are talking about great cars. Michaels fans have no idea what a really bad car is. A Minardi, a Toleman, HRT. Even Mercedes was able to win races and score a pole position (and the other car , driving by Nico one tenth slower than the pole).


In 91/92, compared to Williams and Mclaren, Benetton was a "HRT, Minardi, Toleman". Those cars had WAY more speed than the Benetton

#2493 BetaVersion

BetaVersion
  • Member

  • 689 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 04 December 2012 - 21:33

OMG... :wave:


So far, you:

_didn't even know Benetton's correct name, still dared to post crap about their performance
_was wrong about many things in Spa 92, and things of the 91 and 99 seasons

and now is wrong again about technical aspects of the cars.

Sorry to break your heart but your dear Ayrton Senna had TC, semi-automatic gearbox and other eletronics in 92, while Schumacher(your evil) had manual gearbox and no eletronic whatsoever

Schumacher was never a good qualifier, so what? Hakkinen and other drivers was faster than him, even in that weak grid era.

Irvine was awfull and Michael was not a good qualifier.

Benneton was way better than Mclaren in 1993. Not only for the first half of the year. Still the diference between Senna and Michael in terms of speed was so huge you get confused.



Schumacher was faster than Senna, and that's why you're desperate.

This is the difference in speed between Senna and Schumacher:

1993 qualifyings

Canada :
3 Michael SCHUMACHER 1'20''808
8 Ayrton SENNA 1'21''706

Silverstone:
3 Michael SCHUMACHER 1'20''401
4 Ayrton SENNA 1'21''986

Hungary
3 Michael SCHUMACHER 1'15''228
4 Ayrton SENNA 1'16''451

Spa
3 Michael SCHUMACHER 1'49''075
5 Ayrton SENNA 1'49''934

massive gaps with more or less "equivalent cars".

Schumacher even managed to ouqualify Senna 2 times in 92 when the hyped brazilian had a MASSIVE faster car: the eletronics already mentioned with 100HP of extra power on their V12 engine

Senna could only put massive gaps against Schumacher, in qualifyings, when he had even more massively faster cars, as in 91/92. And that didn't even happen everytime.

In the end, Senna was no faster than Hakkinen :lol:

Edited by BetaVersion, 04 December 2012 - 21:54.


#2494 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,250 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 05 December 2012 - 00:43

Posts deleted.

Senna is off topic in this thread. Trolling from those wishing to use Senna as a stick to wield in here will not be tolerated. Please report trolls and do not respond to them.

Please also avoid discussing other posters.

#2495 eronrules

eronrules
  • Member

  • 3,204 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 11:50

Briatore joins Montezemolo in criticising Schumacher

Italian Briatore, who was team boss when Schumacher won his first two titles with Benetton in the mid-90s, agrees with his fellow Italian Montezemolo.

“The way he (Schumacher) behaved in Brazil was not good. His preference was that Red Bull beats Ferrari,” said Briatore.

“The only one who helped Ferrari was Webber,” he added, referring to Vettel’s Red Bull teammate Mark Webber, who is in Briatore’s management stable.


:rotfl:

#2496 Lelouch

Lelouch
  • Member

  • 608 posts
  • Joined: June 11

Posted 06 December 2012 - 12:22

Briatore joins Montezemolo in criticising Schumacher



:rotfl:

Ah I miss Flavio so much :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

#2497 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 06 December 2012 - 14:25

Briatore joins Montezemolo in criticising Schumacher



:rotfl:

Yeah, it's like Briatore has no interest in Alonso's win, and is utterly impartial in his criticism; and Webber helping Ferrari instead Vettel? Oh my, what a nice team-mate to have, but no surprises over that.

Edited by Sakae, 06 December 2012 - 14:26.


#2498 MSCDesign

MSCDesign
  • Member

  • 112 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 15:58

So now when Michael left Formula 1 for the final time. What are you guys, Michael fans, going to do? Find a new driver to support? Follow F1 with less passion?
For myself I probably won't watch all those Free Practice sessions, I won't watch all the build up at gp weekend and same with post races.

#2499 TifosiUSA

TifosiUSA
  • Member

  • 142 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 17:29

So now when Michael left Formula 1 for the final time. What are you guys, Michael fans, going to do? Find a new driver to support? Follow F1 with less passion?
For myself I probably won't watch all those Free Practice sessions, I won't watch all the build up at gp weekend and same with post races.

For one, I will be rooting against Mercedes.

I'm not only losing interest in F1 because of MSC's absence, but also because of cars that are ugly as sin, underpowered, engine freezes, concrete runoffs, ridiculously overbearing stewarding, DRS, KERS, tire/fuel economy runs...did I mention how ugly the cars are? :well:

Advertisement

#2500 Junky

Junky
  • Member

  • 272 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 06 December 2012 - 18:22

Yeah, it's like Briatore has no interest in Alonso's win, and is utterly impartial in his criticism; and Webber helping Ferrari instead Vettel? Oh my, what a nice team-mate to have, but no surprises over that.


I'll be rooting for another driver, even If not with same enthusiasm (at all!). In 2007, I start cheering for Kubica. Now I'm inclined for Kimi, Hulkenberg or Button.

Edited by Junky, 06 December 2012 - 18:26.