Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 8 votes

It's Schumacher not Rosberg we need to reappraise


  • Please log in to reply
226 replies to this topic

#101 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 3,058 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:20

We have to reappraise Nico, not MS.

MS was fast but dependent of TC to sustain his race pace.
Also MS had a stronger voice in car development at Mercedes so every car upgrade used to hurt Nico's pace, bcs it was very particular to MS.
MS was great in a specific time of F1, but just couldn't adapt to the non-TC time and became extinct.

These driver associations/permutations can lead to wrongful conclusions.
If we go back in time, we can also speculate that Webber is much better than Rosber Jr bcs at Williams he was totally dominated.
So Webber > Schumy :confused:


:rotfl: TC - you know that Schumacher won most of his races without TC? Where does this TC crap come from?

Advertisement

#102 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:28

Two mistakes? There were more incidents than that.
I would say it's comical to run through the wrong pit-box, it loses you a few seconds, but it doesn't end your own and others race........;)

Tell us about it? I don't know driver that doesn't have crashes and who didn't destroy somebody race in his time. Happens to everyone. And as I said sometimes cases a very controversial. He didn't stop somebody from wining and he didn't kill somebody title chances.

Edited by ivand911, 30 May 2013 - 17:31.


#103 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:29

Sorry, cross comparisons don´t work.

We don´t know what´s happening. Rosberg might have always been top material in crap cars, he might have been upped his game year by year. Lewis might not be up to speed, or he might be, and it´s just that Rosberg was always just as good as him. We don´t know. Drivers shape change across months, let alone across seasons. All we can say is that Rosberg has been recently doing really well against strong teammates. Time to give him credit.

#104 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:31

The only difference is the car as I said. If you drive in the middle you can have crashes, remember Monaco? If you drive at the front things change.


"Having crashes" is vastly different to "causing crashes". :lol:

#105 jav

jav
  • Member

  • 197 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:35

The only difference is the car as I said. If you drive in the middle you can have crashes, remember Monaco? If you drive at the front things change. MS have 2 mistakes last year? And some still say he was not guilty in Senna incident. It was said by JV(he said you can't change direction in braking area). It is clumsy to stop in wrong pit-box also. But this things happen.


Ivan- I'm an MS fan too but I have to disagree.

Kimi's first year back was more succesful than MS first year back and not just because of the car. MS first year back, he did NOT beat his team mate in the same car...Kimi did, by big margin. Kimi outscored his team mate by more than double- MS team mate beat him by more than double. Yes MS finished 7th in his first year and Kimi 3rd... that could be car dependant BUT the spread to his team mate is huge and was not car related.

Having said that- I think last year (2012), MS was more of a match to NR than LH is to date. Had Rosberg NOT been told to hold station behind Hamilton- he'd look even better.

Edited by jav, 30 May 2013 - 17:40.


#106 V3TT3L

V3TT3L
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:37

Posted Image



R.I.P.
http://forums.autosp...hp?showforum=10


#107 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 17:40

Ivan- I'm an MS fan too but I have to disagree. Kimi's first year back was more succesful than MS first year back and not just because of the car. MS first year back, he did NOT beat his team mate in the same car...Kimi did, by big margin. He outscored his team mate by more than double. Yes MS finished 7th in his first year and Kimi 3rd... that could be car dependant BUT the spread to his teamate was not.

If they exchange cars and Kimi drive understeery W01(what he don't like, MS also don't like it) and have Nico as team-mate and Michael drive his Lotus car and have RG as team-mate , I don't see how the result will be different? RG help Kimi a lot with his crashes, when RG was faster in Q. I doubt Kimi will beat Nico and I doubt MS will lose to RG. How many times Nico crash and how many times RG crash? This is where Kimi beat him. Lotus was good car and good car can change everything.

Schumacher was not as lucky on return, says Kimi
http://kimiraikkonen...turn-says-kimi/
Argue with the man.

Edited by ivand911, 30 May 2013 - 17:54.


#108 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,871 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:00

You were the one who wanted to put a number to it and you also seemed to genuinely ask me for my opinion and I genuinely gave it. It's not like I stated it as fact. But why ask when you had already decided your response even before you got my answer? :down:

I wanted to know whether your opinion was based on a realistic expectation. I now know.

What sopa wrote above I can agree with;

I don't think you can measure the effect of age like a mathematician - 3 tenths or 5 tenths slower. Unquantifiable.

But what is clear is that 10 or 20 years in a top sport takes its toll and people get exhausted and have less energy, less sparkle. Even in chess people get past their prime. Schumacher may still have been pretty fast, but he sure wasn't as spectacular as when he was young and full of youthful energy. Of that I am certain about.

I couldn't possibly translate that into a number like 7/10ths.

#109 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 3,058 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:02

Sorry, cross comparisons don´t work.

We don´t know what´s happening. Rosberg might have always been top material in crap cars, he might have been upped his game year by year. Lewis might not be up to speed, or he might be, and it´s just that Rosberg was always just as good as him. We don´t know. Drivers shape change across months, let alone across seasons. All we can say is that Rosberg has been recently doing really well against strong teammates. Time to give him credit.


If cross comparisons don't work. How do we know Lewis is a strong teammate? It's no direct cross comparison but we use his performance against another driver in the past to judge him. He did well against Alonso or Button. But perhaps both were not up to there game or the regulation didn't suit them or Lewis hit his prime in 2007 between 2010. Of course we all aware of these tricky comparisons because they don't work like Rosberg>Schumacher>Massa>Raikkonen for example. But we use them all the time - quite often. Regulations are very stable for the last three years, so I see no reason why Rosberg suddenly became better or worse. And the cross comparisons between Rosberg, Schumacher and Hamilton is not perfect, you would never know, but far more accurate and debatable than to say Webber is better than Rosberg so he must be better than Schumacher because the time gap in between was much bigger.

#110 ivand911

ivand911
  • Member

  • 8,152 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:10

If cross comparisons don't work. How do we know Lewis is a strong teammate? It's no direct cross comparison but we use his performance against another driver in the past to judge him. He did well against Alonso or Button. But perhaps both were not up to there game or the regulation didn't suit them or Lewis hit his prime in 2007 between 2010. Of course we all aware of these tricky comparisons because they don't work like Rosberg>Schumacher>Massa>Raikkonen for example. But we use them all the time - quite often. Regulations are very stable for the last three years, so I see no reason why Rosberg suddenly became better or worse. And the cross comparisons between Rosberg, Schumacher and Hamilton is not perfect, you would never know, but far more accurate and debatable than to say Webber is better than Rosberg so he must be better than Schumacher because the time gap in between was much bigger.

Right now Nico will sweep the floor with Webber. If he was his team mate.

Edited by ivand911, 30 May 2013 - 18:11.


#111 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:30

Only 4 races and limited testing isn't bad considering he had been driving a completely different car for the last 2 years.

If Mamsell had a decent amount of motivation (I think by this point in his carrer he didn't) he could have made a better fist of it.

I'm not really getting the who Schumacher was older so he lost at least 3 tenths (or up to 7 some people claim) argument. All drivers on the grid are of different ages so does that mean we can say button is 10 years older than Perez so Button in his prim would be 3 - 7 tenths quicker than he is now? Or same for Webber V Vettel?


Given how the human body develops, it hits its peak between 25-35, before remaining static for a few years and then it starts deteriorating when one approaches 40. That is why we see drivers perform at their best in between the ages of 25 and 35 before their performance starts to slightly deteriorate as they approach 40. And around that age of 40, the eyes start to deteriorate too. So the ones who remain after 40, well after 40 in Schumi's case, would invariably be performing at a level lower than they did at their peak. That is why I can't subscribe to the idea that the 43 year old Schmi was as fast as the 37 year old one.

#112 Fondmetal

Fondmetal
  • Member

  • 148 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:39

We have to reappraise Nico, not MS.

MS was fast but dependent of TC to sustain his race pace.
Also MS had a stronger voice in car development at Mercedes so every car upgrade used to hurt Nico's pace, bcs it was very particular to MS.
MS was great in a specific time of F1, but just couldn't adapt to the non-TC time and became extinct.

These driver associations/permutations can lead to wrongful conclusions.
If we go back in time, we can also speculate that Webber is much better than Rosber Jr bcs at Williams he was totally dominated.
So Webber > Schumy :confused:


You were probably too young to remember that Schumacher was just as fast with out TC.

Cars that didnt have TC Benetton B191, B192 B194 - Debatable, some will say it did some will say otherwise. B195, Ferrari of 97, 98, 99, 00 and few races of 01. 01-06 had TC but didnt make any difference at all. He had the ability to drive on that knife edge limit and could maintain it lap after lap, we say in hungary 98 how he put a string of very fast qualy laps to jump Hakkinen.

Like him of hate him (British people in particular had a dislike because how he spanked the hero Damon Hill) and how he was winning everything and no one came close to him.



#113 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:39

I wanted to know whether your opinion was based on a realistic expectation. I now know.

What sopa wrote above I can agree with;


I couldn't possibly translate that into a number like 7/10ths.


Then why did you ask me to put a number to it?

If you wanted the basis for my opinion, you could have simply asked me to explain. In any case here is my explanation...

Given how the human body develops, it hits its peak between 25-35, before remaining static for a few years and then it starts deteriorating when one approaches 40. That is why we see drivers perform at their best in between the ages of 25 and 35 before their performance starts to slightly deteriorate as they approach 40. And around that age of 40, the eyes start to deteriorate too. So the ones who remain after 40, well after 40 in Schumi's case, would invariably be performing at a level lower than they did at their peak. That is why I can't subscribe to the idea that the 43 year old Schmi was as fast as the 37 year old one.



#114 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 18:52

Given how the human body develops, it hits its peak between 25-35, before remaining static for a few years and then it starts deteriorating when one approaches 40. That is why we see drivers perform at their best in between the ages of 25 and 35 before their performance starts to slightly deteriorate as they approach 40. And around that age of 40, the eyes start to deteriorate too. So the ones who remain after 40, well after 40 in Schumi's case, would invariably be performing at a level lower than they did at their peak. That is why I can't subscribe to the idea that the 43 year old Schmi was as fast as the 37 year old one.


You are describing an average physiology with sweeping generalisations. I'm no fan of Schumacher, but I always figured F1 drivers to be above average with the physiological factors which mattered.

#115 kar

kar
  • Member

  • 10,310 posts
  • Joined: January 06

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:00

Reappraisal?
...
Steady fans - never in doubt, all personal bias notwithstanding. Equipment (mainly simulator), and different rules and culture in terms of driving style of course did not help, but substance of a racer never vapor, and Schumacher was - well - Schumacher. Legend in our time, take it or leave it. I take it.


:up: End of thread.

#116 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:07

You are describing an average physiology with sweeping generalisations. I'm no fan of Schumacher, but I always figured F1 drivers to be above average with the physiological factors which mattered.


Of course their abilities are undoubtedly above average. But they too have a genetic clock according to which they develop and age. And the beauty about physiology is that it can be generally applied to a large populations.

And It's just no coincidence that the last driver to consistently compete at a high level after the age of 40 drove almost 50 years ago.

Edited by gillesthegenius, 30 May 2013 - 19:09.


#117 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:10

If cross comparisons don't work. How do we know Lewis is a strong teammate?


They don´t work because driver´s shape change all the time for no apparent reason. There are up and downs during a season, let alone over the years, that make that exercise pointless.

And we know that Lewis is a strong teammate because he´s one of the four top drivers in the grid, and to win that status you must be consistently brilliant. He´s been. He wasn´t deemed top because he matched Alonso, he was deemed top because he was brilliant for most of his career.

Cross comparisons are for idiots if you ask me. All we know is that Rosberg has the upper hand right now. Might change tomorrow.

#118 Juan Kerr

Juan Kerr
  • Member

  • 2,688 posts
  • Joined: October 05

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:17

The fact that a 43 year old Schumi even kept up with Rosberg makes me wonder how many of the current 'top drivers' he would have humbled in his hey day. Just shows how silly the 'he never had a top team mate' brigade were. No one wins as much as he did without being head and shoulders above one's generation.

F1 has never seen a Senna or a Schumacher since Senna or Schumacher. We haven't got one at the moment because they are producing robot PR drivers with a pre-programmed training systematic pathway. Geniuses like Schumi and Senna are just dropped randomly into the sport out of nowhere and there's nothing you can do to find them, they just find their own way in. You've just got to wait.

#119 driver1

driver1
  • New Member

  • 18 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:25

I'm tired of reading these praises for Schumacher :evil: I completely disagree with that. Once again I repeat - Schumacher finally in 2010-2012 showed his true level, he has shown what he can achieve without fastest car and without cheats, in equal conditions, without unlimited tests, without team-mate "number two." We all saw it . One pole in Monaco and one lucky podium in Valencia for 3 years - it's too small to be considered the best driver. Schumacher has never been the fastest driver. Yes, he could beat such drivers as Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, Ralf Schumacher, etc. Because they were not great. But he lost to Mansell, Prost, Senna, Hakkinen, Alonso, and finally outright lost to his teammate Rosberg. So only one Ayrton Senna is a legendary champion and the greatest racing driver in history, but never Schumacher! Ayrton Senna - the greatest! :clap:

Edited by driver1, 30 May 2013 - 19:26.


Advertisement

#120 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:35

Schumacher finally in 2010-2012 showed his true level, he has shown what he can achieve without fastest car and without cheats, in equal conditions, without unlimited tests, without team-mate "number two." We all saw it .


Pffft. Go get some sleep mate. Schumacher was the benchmark of the grid for most of his looong career. Amongst the best -or the simply the best- out there against multiple generations. But you think the last part of his career with 40 years is the only representative bit of his performance.

It´s quite the opposite to what you say in fact, his first career was so superb that no matter how bad his second career was (and it wasn´t THAT bad) his reputation is intact. He could come back with 50 years to trundle around the back if he wants, it´ll make no difference to me.

Driver´s shape and speed change with time, what you do is just as absurd as a cross comparison. As absurd as saying 2011 is "real Hamilton´s level", picking one poor year between an overall brilliant career.

#121 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:37

And It's just no coincidence that the last driver to consistently compete at a high level after the age of 40 drove almost 50 years ago.


Correlation and causation again.


#122 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 3,058 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:48

Don't confuse correlation and causation.


Nice academical try. Of course Schumacher's performance could have been affected through different factors and even if other drivers over forty will fail in an academical sense it would not be right to say ages causes less speed. I understood that - but come on we are on a formula one board. You can't call of quantitative analysis, we don't know much about effecting factors neither we have a huge sample rate. In this state you only go by argumentations, cross comparisons to other sports or future events (older drivers in formula one) - empirical this isn't right. Would should we do - ask all old drivers to came back to prove a point?

Edited by 1Devil1, 30 May 2013 - 20:10.


#123 smitten

smitten
  • Member

  • 1,452 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 19:55

Would should we do - ask all old drivers to came back to proof a point?


No, we simply should not assert that Schumacher's lack of success upon his return to the paddock was solely because of physiological factors. There are many plausible psychological reasons why an "older driver" may be slower such as a decreased risk appetite. Then there are simple lifestye issues such as not wanting to spend 8 months of the year away from home. Or the lack of sponsorship for older drivers (as much of the grid pays in one way or another).




#124 carbonfibre

carbonfibre
  • Member

  • 6,295 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 30 May 2013 - 20:39

Judging ms's comeback against 6 drives from LH in a new team and car, gotta love how Internet forums work.

Well judging Schumachers comeback is also very easy for a lot of people here, they just point at the score total and wins and say Rosberg was much better. It's not so simple.

As i said before when Micheal retired, Rosberg was better in 2010, in 2011 he had a slight edge on Michael, and in 2012 i believe Michael had the edge. His comeback with the Mercedes team could have been a much better story had Mercedes built him and Rosberg a decent car in those years.

#125 iakhtar

iakhtar
  • Member

  • 184 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:12

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.

His comeback was like watching a different driver entirely, too calm and relaxed, nothing to gain and nothing to lose style. There were glimpses of old but they were all too brief.

#126 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:12

Michael was showing sign of his vintage self in 2012, however, the car simply did not keep up. Like many, the simple fact the Michael was able to give it a good go at Nico, who is doing quite awesome this year vs Lewis, says it all.

I have no doubt that if a 2000 vintage Michael was racing today, he would be better than the rest, that includes Fernando Alonso. It also says something about how good Mika Hakkinen truly was in the 1998-2000 seasons.

#127 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:13

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.

His comeback was like watching a different driver entirely, too calm and relaxed, nothing to gain and nothing to lose style. There were glimpses of old but they were all too brief.



I'd argue that Mika Hakkinen would do very well in his prime vs today's grid as well. Given Mika only had a "great" car for 3 seasons says a lot about him.

Edited by George Costanza, 30 May 2013 - 21:14.


#128 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:23

I'm tired of reading these praises for Schumacher :evil: I completely disagree with that. Once again I repeat - Schumacher finally in 2010-2012 showed his true level, he has shown what he can achieve without fastest car and without cheats, in equal conditions, without unlimited tests, without team-mate "number two." We all saw it . One pole in Monaco and one lucky podium in Valencia for 3 years - it's too small to be considered the best driver. Schumacher has never been the fastest driver. Yes, he could beat such drivers as Hill, Jacques Villeneuve, Ralf Schumacher, etc. Because they were not great. But he lost to Mansell, Prost, Senna, Hakkinen, Alonso, and finally outright lost to his teammate Rosberg. So only one Ayrton Senna is a legendary champion and the greatest racing driver in history, but never Schumacher! Ayrton Senna - the greatest! :clap:


Michael was already matching Ayrton in the 1992 season.... and you say he lost to those guys, Ayrton lost to Prost, Mansell, Piquet, and other top end drivers more than once.

Ayrton, while I do consider him slightly better than Michael because of his sheer speed but Michael has him beat in the category of team buliding and working toward a winning combination. Ayrton, while he had the support of Honda and the Japanese loved him, he couldn't do the same as Schumacher did.




#129 Nemo1965

Nemo1965
  • Member

  • 2,438 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:41

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.


No, no, no. The comeback of Schumacher and the comparison between Hamilton and Rosberg show two things

1. Rosberg (and other current drivers) are much better than Schumacher-fans like yourself always thought
2. Schumachers comeback was much better than many Schumacher-critics always thought



#130 V3TT3L

V3TT3L
  • Member

  • 1,681 posts
  • Joined: November 12

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:41

Schumy fans know - deep inside - that his comeback was foul.

That's why they keep haunting and revisiting his Mercedes years - over and over and over again.

Trying to convince themselves, bcs it useless to non beliebers.

#131 RSNS

RSNS
  • Member

  • 1,495 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:42

From the opening thread:

"can we then say that Schumacher in this prime years would have been -- out of this world?"

Having watched him drive I haven't the slightest doubt about it.

#132 Sausage

Sausage
  • Member

  • 1,806 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:48

I find this a bit early really. It smells like more cheap Hamilton bashing since him VS Rosberg is what all these arguments now hinge on.

Besides that it doesn't matter anyway, the only thing that counts are results. Ham and Alo are publicly generally regarded as the 2 best drivers on the grid but haven't won a WDC since '05, '06 and '08. So what good does it do. Maybe we need to reappraise all those backmarkers too along all the years. Of course they got no points or podiums but maybe if we compare them to a bit more succesfull teammates they were not that rubbish after all, yipee! :p

#133 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 21:50

Schumacher's comeback, in my opinion, was still unsuccessful--even considering Rosberg's recent performances--because he didn't manage to fulfill his goal of winning an eighth championship, let alone a race. Monaco 2012's pole position was perhaps the high point, but a driver who I think many would agree belongs in the all-time top-tier doesn't need to spend three years trundling around the midfield, even if he is beating one of this generation's highest-rated talents.

Schumi never struck me as one who needed or wanted the petty approval of the media or fickle fans from victory in teammate battles or being 'good without the best car'--the results were his ultimate goal above all else. Because of this and the fact that he barely managed to add anything to his resume, I'd still class his comeback as a failure, even if I do think he was only a whisker behind/ahead of Rosberg alternatingly in 2011/2012.

#134 TheThirdTenor1

TheThirdTenor1
  • Member

  • 882 posts
  • Joined: April 13

Posted 30 May 2013 - 22:11

Schumacher's comeback, in my opinion, was still unsuccessful--even considering Rosberg's recent performances--because he didn't manage to fulfill his goal of winning an eighth championship, let alone a race. Monaco 2012's pole position was perhaps the high point, but a driver who I think many would agree belongs in the all-time top-tier doesn't need to spend three years trundling around the midfield, even if he is beating one of this generation's highest-rated talents.

Schumi never struck me as one who needed or wanted the petty approval of the media or fickle fans from victory in teammate battles or being 'good without the best car'--the results were his ultimate goal above all else. Because of this and the fact that he barely managed to add anything to his resume, I'd still class his comeback as a failure, even if I do think he was only a whisker behind/ahead of Rosberg alternatingly in 2011/2012.


If it were just about results, he would have never joined Ferrari in 1996.


#135 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 30 May 2013 - 22:46

If it were just about results, he would have never joined Ferrari in 1996.



Indeed. He could have easily stayed at Benetton for the 1996 season, then won another WDC in 1996 and 1997.

#136 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 30 May 2013 - 23:43

Odd that so many believe MS was slower and got slower during his comeback, but I've not seen any thoughts on whether Rosberg has become a better driver in the last 3 years. All that time he spent with MS, picking up knowledge, perhaps getting fitter might have come together and paid off this year. Throw in a better - for him - car and LH not getting to grips with much different handing car to the McLaren and shit tyres, Rosberg has hit a 'winning' streak. We will only know if Rosberg's pace over LH is permanent by the end of the season. Six races mean sod all, when compared to the 55+ that Rosberg raced against MS.




#137 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:31

...or overestimated Hamilton, and now we see him in different light. Argument is not very straightforward.


Sakae: Hamilton was never that good to begin with - he was always overhyped by the Brits. Of course, his 2007, when Ron Dennis clearly favored him ("We are racing Alonso...") helped his reputation, but was never the accurate picture. Already by 2008 a different picture started to emerge, when he did not profit anymore from Alonso´s set up work.

Nico has always been a very solid above average driver and an excellent set up driver, but never a world beater like Sebastian Vettel, Fernando Alonso or Ayrton Senna. That he now has the handle on Hamilton says more about Hamilton than about Rosberg.

Schumacher was in his peak years a world beater like the above mentioned, but was clearly out of his depth from 2010 - 2013 - thus he was even a bit behind Rosberg.

Aliasj´s exercise in writing was obviously more an exercise in righting than anything else.

#138 holiday

holiday
  • Member

  • 3,473 posts
  • Joined: October 01

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:33

I'm not really getting the who Schumacher was older so he lost at least 3 tenths (or up to 7 some people claim) argument.


Well, you have probably already asked yourself why Stirling Moss isn't competing in formula 1 any more.

The market is (almost) always right and the driver market has been holding the retirement age pretty steady for more than a decade.

Alesi, Coulthard, Irvine, Frentzen, Trulli, Fisichella all retired at the age of 36-37. Villeneuve, Heidfeld and Häkkinen even earlier. Retirement has been for quite a while in the air for the next natural candidate, Webber. The clear pattern should ring a bell.

Only RB (aside from PDLR's comeback) stuck around a little longer, but even he did not cross the magic 40.




#139 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:36

Schumacher in his prime would murder this current grid, exactly as he did to his own when he actually was.


Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....

Advertisement

#140 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:44

Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....



2005 is not a fair deal given the tire situation...

2006? Schu could have won it had it been a little bit lucky.

If we are talking say, 1998-2000 Schumacher vs 2010-2012 Fernando Alonso, perhaps Schumacher would have an edge on outright speed, though. But I still think a prime Schumacher would be too much for the current grid to handle...

Edited by George Costanza, 31 May 2013 - 00:46.


#141 aditya-now

aditya-now
  • Member

  • 7,203 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:47

2005 is not a fair deal given the tire situation...


Were 2002 - 2004 a fair deal given the tire situation?

#142 hupholland

hupholland
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:47

Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....

36/37 years old is not prime, and certainly he was not murdered in 2006, just a bit unlucky maybe.

You can say what you want about Schumacher, but if you can still perform at the highest level, at that age, in a sport that's still evolving, I think you can only give credits to that guy.. I don't see Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton still acting at that level when they are at that age...

Edited by hupholland, 31 May 2013 - 00:49.


#143 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:49

Were 2002 - 2004 a fair deal given the tire situation?



I guess you did not see the 2003 season, where Ferrari was behind Williams and McLaren that year.

#144 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,543 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:50

36/37 years old is not prime, and certainly he was not murdered in 2006, just a bit unlucky maybe.

You can say what you want about Schumacher, but if you can still perform at the highest level, at that age, in a sport that's still evolving, I think you can only give credits to that guy.. I don't see Alonso, Vettel or Hamilton still acting at that level when they are at that age...



Absolutely.


The fact is that Michael went toe to toe with Fernando, given his age, is very impressive.

#145 gillesthegenius

gillesthegenius
  • Member

  • 2,534 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 31 May 2013 - 00:58

Although he was murdered by Alonso already in 2005/2006, and you cannot say that Schumacher was not great until Brazil 2006....


Even if I agree with your assesment that he got murdered - which I think is just gross hyperbole - how can we even prove that the Renaults of those years wasn't much better than the Ferraris that they had to compete with? And in the same way, how well did Damon Hill murder Schumi in 96. Btw I'm talking about three championships in which I cheered for the ultimate champion. :)

Edited by gillesthegenius, 31 May 2013 - 01:12.


#146 hupholland

hupholland
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 May 2013 - 01:09

just look at Valentino Rossi, maybe the best Moto GP/500cc driver ever, only 34 right now... not the same sport of course, but just to show how hard it is to keep up with new generations...

#147 hupholland

hupholland
  • Member

  • 84 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 May 2013 - 01:16

how in the world does a 7 time world champion has to prove himself at the age of 41/42/43??? doesn't seem fair to me, although he did an impressive job (as far as I can see)

#148 genespleen

genespleen
  • Member

  • 359 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 31 May 2013 - 01:29

And yet you do so anyway, and with some conviction. Why stick with 7/10ths? Why not make it a whole second and be done with it?


Hmmm. I don't think there's a need quantify things in some absolute sense. What (most) folks are seeking is a simple recognition that for a 43-year-old to effectively compete in F1 in 2012 was rather remarkable. At least that's how I see it.

#149 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 629 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 31 May 2013 - 02:23

Even if I agree with your assesment that he got murdered - which I think is just gross hyperbole - how can we even prove that the Renaults of those years wasn't much better than the Ferraris that they had to compete with? And in the same way, how well did Damon Hill murder Schumi in 96. Btw I'm talking about three championships in which I cheered for the ultimate champion. :)


In 2005, changing tires during races was not allowed, except in case of damage or a weather change (rain). The same set of tires had to last qualifying and the whole race distance. And Michelin had clearly an advantage over Bridgestone. Ferrari was just not competitive, mainly because of the tires.
And at the beginning of 2006, the Ferrari chassis wasn't great either and Bridgestone still behind. Renault had a head-start and won the first three GPs. It was an improvement, that Tombazis left McLaren and joined Ferrari in March 2006 as new head designer, but the car for 2006 was already build of course. Ferrari's development during the season was good, so was Bridgestone's tyre development, but at the end, they lost the championship because of the weak form in the first half of the season. Considering Renault's mass damper affair, it was even at best.
And Schumacher and Alonso were never teammates, still Alonso beat him. Vettel is beating Alonso since 4 years in this regard. But in this case, people would say, the comparison wouldn't be fair because they didn't have the same car.

Edited by ThomFi, 31 May 2013 - 02:26.


#150 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 31 May 2013 - 03:06

If it were just about results, he would have never joined Ferrari in 1996.

Maybe so--I wasn't watching then so I can't say for sure. However, I do think Schumacher knew what he was doing when he went to Ferrari; I really don't think he would've left if he didn't feel they had the capacity to be better in the long run.