90 replies to this topic

[noikeee]

By the way I would agree that earlier Villenueve (1997) and Hakkinen (1998-2000) looked briefly at least near him, as they fought for titles on similarly equal standing or only slightly quicker cars. However that was a short-lived era: Schumacher looked ridiculously better than everyone else for both the few years before (Imola 94-end of 1996) and the years after (2001-2004 with the possible exception of 2003).

[Jon83]

2002. I think he was at his peak through 2003 season and by 2004 he was fractions slower (not that it mattered) and by 2005 he had declined enough to allow a rising Fernando to clinch the title.

Fair enough but I don't think he ever had a chance of the 2005 title. It was a pretty terrible season for the team.

[schubacca]

Hard to say....

But JPM was never a consistent match for MS. We witnessed him give up racing in the US GP in his last year, I believe.

FA was a match for MS. In 2006, he lost fair and square, but was not destroyed by FA. The Ferrari and Renault were evenly matched on the balance of 2006. I argue that MS wins the 2007 in an easier fashion that KR at Ferrari.

2004 is the year for me.....

[muramasa]

sometime b/w late 2010 and mid 2011.

[lustigson]

By the way I would agree that earlier Villenueve (1997) and Hakkinen (1998-2000) looked briefly at least near him, as they fought for titles on similarly equal standing or only slightly quicker cars. However that was a short-lived era: Schumacher looked ridiculously better than everyone else for both the few years before (Imola 94-end of 1996) and the years after (2001-2004 with the possible exception of 2003).

This is almost exactly what I meant in my earlier post: in 1994 (even pre-Imola) and 1995 Schumacher had the best car and team, and no opponent of the same calibre. The same arguably goes for 1998 1999 through 2002 as well as 2004.

Edited by lustigson, 05 June 2013 - 15:06.

[seahawk]

F1 is a team sport. No driver can shine without a good team and car. However I think that in whole time up until the end of 2006 it would be hard to name a driver who would have made more out of the cars that were given to MSC by his team. Which does not mean that others might not have been rougly equally succesful given the same cars.

[BoschKurve]

This is almost exactly what I meant in my earlier post: in 1994 (even pre-Imola) and 1995 Schumacher had the best car and team, and no opponent of the same calibre. The same arguably goes for 1998 through 2002 as well as 2004.

I'd actually question how good the Benetton-Renault was. Berger was taken for a surprise when he drove the B195 after he left Ferrari. He expected the car to be easy to drive since Michael won the title quite handily, yet was stunned by how difficult the car was to drive. The rear end I believe was not as stable as many would have expected.

[scheivlak]

2005 when Alonso proved he was the real deal and the new King. Kimi and Montoya were hyped up as his new rivals but in reality they were both exposed as pretenders and failed to beat Michael.

For a start, Kimi beat Michael 112-62 in 2005
Of course, these numbers are only mildly relevant to this discussion, just like Alonso's 2005 score is because the Bridgestone performance was too erratic that year.

But Kimi was just as formidable as Fernando in 2005, he was just held back by unreliability (all those engine changes costing him 10 places on the grid). Just look at some 'Driver of the Year' outcomes of 2005 - they were mostly seen as pretty equal 1st.

To me BTW Michael's 2006 season was stronger than I expected and I rate his 2006 Chinese GP performance amongst his very best.

[SpaMaster]

I stated this many times but there is no driver of the current grid that would beat a vintage Schumacher of 1990s.

Not relevant to this thread.

[mnmracer]

This is almost exactly what I meant in my earlier post: in 1994 (even pre-Imola) and 1995 Schumacher had the best car and team, and no opponent of the same calibre. The same arguably goes for 1998 through 2002 as well as 2004.

No way in any hell of any religion did Schumacher have the best car in 1998...

[Wander]

Suzuka and Adelaide 1994.

[OldSoldier2]

2007.

[ThomFi]

I'd actually question how good the Benetton-Renault was. Berger was taken for a surprise when he drove the B195 after he left Ferrari. He expected the car to be easy to drive since Michael won the title quite handily, yet was stunned by how difficult the car was to drive. The rear end I believe was not as stable as many would have expected.

Berger said , the car went into an aerodynamic stall when driving over bumps and you needed to countersteer, if bumps were in a corner. Simply put, the car was very difficult to drive.
I can't translate it, because of my clumsy English.
"Im Charakter unserer Autos war Übersteuern beim Einlenken sozusagen aerodynamisch einkonstruiert", erinnert sich Berger."Bevor es zur ersten Massage im Benetton-Motorhome kam, schmiss ich schon das weltmeisterliche Auto hinaus", schreibt der Österreicher in seinem Buch 'Zielgerade'. "Der Wagen war einfach ausgebrochen - und weg -, so schnell konnte ich gar nicht schauen."
Zwei Crashs später, hatte Berger das Problem ausgemacht: "Das Auto ging bei full speed auf Bodenwellen 'in stall', wie ein Flugzeug, bei dem die aerodynamische Wirkung abrupt abreißt. War diese Bodenwelle in einer schnellen Kurve, dann konnte der Wagen übersteuernd ausbrechen."
Diese Eigenschaft des B196 war sicherlich nicht neu. Auch Schumachers Teamkollege Johnny Herbert war 1995 ein paar Mal abgeflogen. "Michael Schumacher hatte eine Art übersinnlichen Reflex für die Situation", lobt Berger. "Er nahm das Gegenlenken auf der Boxenwelle automatisch vorweg, hatte diesen Ablauf schon in sich gespeichert. Spätestens zu diesem Zeitpunkt nahm ich den letzten Rest von Reserviertheit gegen Michael Schumacher zurück: Wer dieses Auto auch im Grenzbereich so souverän im Griff hatte, musste absolute Extraklasse sein."

[lustigson]

No way in any hell of any religion did Schumacher have the best car in 1998...

Correct. I meant 1999. My bad.

[drag]

I think 90`s where his prime years as a driver even though his big success came after 2000, so Id say best years 96/97/98 and then came his injury in 99 British GP.

[schubacca]

As for the frequent mention of 2005: the fact that Schumacher dragged the Ferrari on Bridgestones to 3rd place in the WDC in 2005 was pretty darn impressive.

Undisputed, though? Perhaps he became that in 1994 after Senna's death. In 1996 he had the excuse of a lacklustre Ferrari. In 1997 it was close between him and Villeneuve, and in 1998 the McLaren was a very, very good car. Perhaps the troublesome start to 1999 is when his status became disputed? But then he had his crash in Silverstone and returned in style in Malaysia, almost so dominant as to ridicule the rest of the grid, including his teammate and reining champion Hakkinen.

He was again great in 2000, but in the summer those two first lap DNFs in Austria and Germany reignited the championship battle. Hakkinen went on to win in Hungary, putting him in the lead of the WDC table. But then came Spa. Spa, where Schumacher reigned. Spa is where he would set things right, and put Ferrari back on track to finally winning WDC.

Then this happened:

I prefer to look at that as one great F1 driver making a great move on another great F1 driver

[Wander]

Berger said , the car went into an aerodynamic stall when driving over bumps and you needed to countersteer, if bumps were in a corner. Simply put, the car was very difficult to drive.
I can't translate it, because of my clumsy English.
"Im Charakter unserer Autos war Übersteuern beim Einlenken sozusagen aerodynamisch einkonstruiert", erinnert sich Berger."Bevor es zur ersten Massage im Benetton-Motorhome kam, schmiss ich schon das weltmeisterliche Auto hinaus", schreibt der Österreicher in seinem Buch 'Zielgerade'. "Der Wagen war einfach ausgebrochen - und weg -, so schnell konnte ich gar nicht schauen."
Zwei Crashs später, hatte Berger das Problem ausgemacht: "Das Auto ging bei full speed auf Bodenwellen 'in stall', wie ein Flugzeug, bei dem die aerodynamische Wirkung abrupt abreißt. War diese Bodenwelle in einer schnellen Kurve, dann konnte der Wagen übersteuernd ausbrechen."
Diese Eigenschaft des B196 war sicherlich nicht neu. Auch Schumachers Teamkollege Johnny Herbert war 1995 ein paar Mal abgeflogen. "Michael Schumacher hatte eine Art übersinnlichen Reflex für die Situation", lobt Berger. "Er nahm das Gegenlenken auf der Boxenwelle automatisch vorweg, hatte diesen Ablauf schon in sich gespeichert. Spätestens zu diesem Zeitpunkt nahm ich den letzten Rest von Reserviertheit gegen Michael Schumacher zurück: Wer dieses Auto auch im Grenzbereich so souverän im Griff hatte, musste absolute Extraklasse sein."

Michael's opinion on the Benetton, taken from an interview in 1999:

DH: I mean, in your Benetton days, the on-board camera would show you doing 6000 revs per minute with your arms! You used to be very busy in the car, and you seem to have calmed down a bit now.
MS: This is true, but I'll tell you the reason why. You remember when I left Benetton, and [Jean] Alesi and [Gerhard] Berger took their first steps in that Benetton? You remember how many crashes they had?

DH: Yes, I do remember.
MS: Well, if you had ever driven that car, Damon, you would know why I was driving it that way. I mean, that car was really unbelievable. Really difficult to drive. It was so edgy. But it was fast when you just drove it exactly on that edge. Now, though, there have been a lot of aerodynamic improvements to the cars and so the cars I have driven have been a lot more stable.

[ebc]

They had their chances, at the end of the day were not good enough to beat Schumacher. Their 2003 cars were good enough.

Nonsense, Kimi beat him in 2005 remember? In 2003 the Ferrari was the better, faster and more reliable car no doubt, Kimi was the best driver that year and but for and engine blow up in Germany would have taken the title, reliability also cost him in 2005.

[Skinnyguy]

Hey, guys remember what we´re discussing. It´s inevitable to reply to some incorrect statements about old stuff, or simply stuff we don´t agree with. But let´s not end up in silly fan wars, please.

BTW, interesting article on the Benneton. When you watch races from that era every car was sort of wanting to turn every time it hits a bump, so I don´t want to know what a "edgy car" was considered back then.

[velgajski1]

When was he no longer undisputed boss of the grid?
As soon as he retired in 2006.

I see what you did here

[four1]

Monaco 2006 - after he parked his Ferrari at Rascasse.

[SpeedRacer`]

Wow, Hill interviewed Schumacher?!

He was peerless for me 1994-1997, how anyone can say Villeneuve challenged him (purely as a driver) is a mystery to me. Watching the races again that Ferrari looked seriously awful, often qualifying at the back end of the top 10. It was only a series of stuff ups by Villeneuve and lucky breaks (McLaren retirements) that made it look closer than it really should've been.

[F1Champion]

perhaps Imola 2005 when he couldnt get past Alonso, but definitely Istanbul 2006 when he was beaten by Massa.

That one is odd really because in qualifying Michael was massively faster than Massa, but twice he locked his brakes going into T1 on his fast lap. I remember his Q1 and Q2 times destroyed Massa. But the qualifying mistake did cost him the win easily.

[sopa]

I don't see as Schumacher being an undisputed king till 200* whatever. It was not that clear-cut in his battle with Hakkinen. IMO 2000 was really crunch-time, it could have gone either way really. Belgian GP was incredible. Hakkinen passed Schumi and coming back from a long way behind in the championship - he was some 20 pts behind at one point in the season. But now Hakkinen had 74 points, Schumacher 68. Both drivers on the same amount of titles (2), the balance of powers was yet to be played out. Schumacher may have been great, but Hakkinen was having a good run of form with a shot at his third straight WDC. Although in the end we know Schumacher won 5 titles in a row and left Hakkinen a long way behind in statistics, at the time they were really matched and looked like their careers could end with similar success. Especially as they as drivers were equally-aged too.

But of course after the loss of title all the tables turned with Hakkinen. He suffered terrible luck in 2001, lost motivation, competitiveness and retired quickly. But this wasn't foreseen in 2000, when Hakkinen was still in his prime and it looked like Schumi-Mika battles could continue for many years with the battles going either way really.

Also Villeneuve. Even though Schumacher was superior in 1997, you would have at least considered Villeneuve as a realistic long-term threat to Schumacher. After all, Villeneuve was younger and only his second year in F1. Which means he had more development potential and even if he was inferior to Schumi at the time, he could develop himself as a match later on. Certainly I felt that way.

Fast forward to 2003-04, when Schumi had already 6-7 titles, while the rest of the grid had zero and only a handful race wins each. Nothing to compare really - Schumi is the king much more clearly here. And compared to 97-00 Schumi had established himself statistically too.

[Longtimefan]

perhaps Imola 2005 when he couldnt get past Alonso

I think you'll find he was beaten by an illegal mass damper, not Alonso.

[TheThirdTenor1]

I think you'll find he was beaten by an illegal mass damper, not Alonso.

I think you'll find that you're wrong.

[MikeTekRacing]

I don't see as Schumacher being an undisputed king till 200* whatever. It was not that clear-cut in his battle with Hakkinen. IMO 2000 was really crunch-time, it could have gone either way really. Belgian GP was incredible. Hakkinen passed Schumi and coming back from a long way behind in the championship - he was some 20 pts behind at one point in the season. But now Hakkinen had 74 points, Schumacher 68. Both drivers on the same amount of titles (2), the balance of powers was yet to be played out. Schumacher may have been great, but Hakkinen was having a good run of form with a shot at his third straight WDC. Although in the end we know Schumacher won 5 titles in a row and left Hakkinen a long way behind in statistics, at the time they were really matched and looked like their careers could end with similar success. Especially as they as drivers were equally-aged too.

But of course after the loss of title all the tables turned with Hakkinen. He suffered terrible luck in 2001, lost motivation, competitiveness and retired quickly. But this wasn't foreseen in 2000, when Hakkinen was still in his prime and it looked like Schumi-Mika battles could continue for many years with the battles going either way really.

Also Villeneuve. Even though Schumacher was superior in 1997, you would have at least considered Villeneuve as a realistic long-term threat to Schumacher. After all, Villeneuve was younger and only his second year in F1. Which means he had more development potential and even if he was inferior to Schumi at the time, he could develop himself as a match later on. Certainly I felt that way.

Fast forward to 2003-04, when Schumi had already 6-7 titles, while the rest of the grid had zero and only a handful race wins each. Nothing to compare really - Schumi is the king much more clearly here. And compared to 97-00 Schumi had established himself statistically too.

mika had bad luck in 2001 but schumacher had plenty of bad luck in 2000 that allowed mika to catch him in the points.

[scheivlak]

While you're squabbling over Imola 2005, maybe you should consider that Kimi was way out in the lead that day when his car failed him again

Edited by scheivlak, 05 June 2013 - 21:49.

[panzani]

Shouldn't Dick Dastardly be now just TNF material?

[Fondmetal]

Maybe those who say he lost it should watch this race. I think he burnt out as he said it himself the drive to continue at that very top level of peak performance wasnt there. Can you blame him? he had already completed 15 full seasons he is not a robot to continue going on and on with out some low days at times.



The amount of stick he gets its incredible. Lets not forget Senna in 1992, 1993 at times was beaten also. In 94 he was trailing and in Brazil he pushed too hard and lost it. Of course his death created an even greater elevated status which can cloud peoples judgement when saying who is better, Senna or Schumacher. I would personally say they were both greats and would be hard to split them, not other driver comes close to them yet.

Edited by Fondmetal, 05 June 2013 - 22:30.

[George Costanza]

This is almost exactly what I meant in my earlier post: in 1994 (even pre-Imola) and 1995 Schumacher had the best car and team, and no opponent of the same calibre. The same arguably goes for 1998 1999 through 2002 as well as 2004.

Benetton did not have the best car in 1995. That's a fact.

[Kingshark]

While you're squabbling over Imola 2005, maybe you should consider that Kimi was way out in the lead that day when his car failed him again

Raikkonen and Alonso had virtually identical times in Q1, only 0.003 s between them, but Kimi was much quicker in Q2 by about 6 tenths; that suggests that he likely had very little fuel onboard for the race. Then on lap 8, one lap before he retired, he only had a 3.6 second lead despite driving a considerably lighter car.

Just keeping reality in check.

Edited by Kingshark, 05 June 2013 - 23:49.

[vlado]

I still think that 2005 and 2006 were more to do with tires than anything else.. if they were all on Japanese rubber for those two years, I doubt that Alonso would've taken two titles away from MS.

So.. I think we never saw the real decline.. 2008 might've been the year for that.

Edited by vlado, 06 June 2013 - 02:29.

[Junky]

I think 2005 was more about the car and tyres than about him. He still did REALLY well, hell, he was 3rd on that car. And even taking those 10 points he gained for free, he was way too close to JPM or Fisichella with a car that should be probably squabling with the Toyotas, Hondas and Williams.

I think that isolating performance he was better in 2005 than in 2003. Still good speed, less mistakes. I´d go as far as saying that he was still impressive that year.

I absolutely agree with this.

[noikeee]

Oh no doubt MS was still absolutely excellent in 2005/2006 and far ahead most of the field, I have not forgotten Interlagos 2006 at all, the point however is that by then you started wondering "hang on, is this Alonso chap really any less competitive?". By the end of 2006 I was 99% sure Alonso was as good as him over a season.

[SpamJet]

Brazil 2003

[Skinnyguy]

Raikkonen and Alonso had virtually identical times in Q1, only 0.003 s between them, but Kimi was much quicker in Q2 by about 6 tenths; that suggests that he likely had very little fuel onboard for the race. Then on lap 8, one lap before he retired, he only had a 3.6 second lead despite driving a considerably lighter car.

Just keeping reality in check.

Guesswork. Again mate, a quick look at F1stats won´t help you understanding the events of a race weekend you didn´t watch.

- Räikkönen might have had a scruffy in Q1.
- Alonso might have had a scruffy lap in Q2.
- Heavy downpour overnight (not hypothetic, it DID happen) took away all rubber, McLaren car might have enjoyed these new conditions much more.
- Without mistakes, in Monza he still went fastest in what was by then simply "Q" carrying a healthy fuel load excess.

So sadly we´ll never know how light he was, as he didn´t even make it to the first stop.

Anyway, once again, it´s clear you were not watching back then. Pulling 4 tenths away per lap from someone that´ll stop same number of times than you, but will simply make a longer first stint is way more than you need. By lap 16 (roughly the time for 1st stop on a light strategy) he´d have like 7-8 seconds advantage, more than enough to retain the lead against someone going 3-4 laps longer (and that´s being generous considering the 6 tenths gap).

So then again, even if all the quali laps were clean, and the rain overnight didn´t change the pecking order, the rate at which he was pulling away was more than enough.

Just to keep reality in check.

[scheivlak]

Raikkonen and Alonso had virtually identical times in Q1, only 0.003 s between them, but Kimi was much quicker in Q2 by about 6 tenths; that suggests that he likely had very little fuel onboard for the race. Then on lap 8, one lap before he retired, he only had a 3.6 second lead despite driving a considerably lighter car.

Just keeping reality in check.

At the next race, the Spanish GP, Alonso was faster than Raikkonen in Q1, Kimi was 0.2 seconds faster in Q2 - and guess what? He drove away right from the start despite an almost comparable fuel load (McLaren was nearly always rather heavy on fuel all through the season BTW).

So be careful to draw conclusions about race pace just from Q1 and Q2 lap times

[holiday]

I clearly remember that in 2005 pundits like Lauda started to talk about KR and FA in equal terms as MS.

It just reminded you that the opinion market always tends to follow the championship standings in their ratings of drivers.

If MS' engine had not blown up in Suzi, we wouldn't probably have this conversation.

[aditya-now]

I was never a big fan of Schumacher, Somehow I always found myself rooting for his biggest challengers (jv, mh, jpm, kr, fa), and that just about sums it up I think. Sports is all about emotion, storytelling and hero's. And the best stories are the ones where you can have a 'favourite enemy'. Schumacher was the benchmark and there was me hoping that some newster would emerge to challenge him and come out on top as the new 'hero'. Throughout his (first) career you could never ever dismiss him. He was always a big factor in the championship. He was the one to beat and I remember how impressed I was with Alonso doing that after all the years of the MS/Ferrari reign. I particularly remember the imola 2005 race, cheering on the couch for Alonso to keep MS behind him in a trilling 1on1 battle. That day Alonso proved (to me) that he could be beaten.

And funnily enough I found myself kinda rooting for Schumi in 2006. Hoping the 'old dog' would resurrect ones more. And that season really went to the bitter end. Only 2 races to go and Alonso and Schumacher having exactly the same amount of points... And then his engine explodes while leading Japan... My wife actually came storming into the livingroom to check if I was okay, hearing me yell 'Noooooooo'...

Anyway: to me, Schumacher never stopped being the benchmark until he stopped racing (for the first time). He was by far my favourite enemy to beat...

+1

[SpeedRacer`]

That one is odd really because in qualifying Michael was massively faster than Massa, but twice he locked his brakes going into T1 on his fast lap. I remember his Q1 and Q2 times destroyed Massa. But the qualifying mistake did cost him the win easily.

Actually fuel corrected he was faster than Massa in Q3 too, with about 8 more laps of fuel. He would've beaten him but had to queue when they pitted because of a SC.

Edited by SpeedRacer`, 06 June 2013 - 13:42.