97 replies to this topic

[Vitesse2]

Meh. If he's not feeling that kind of thing then he's not feeling it. Who knows what else was going on that made him not want to come out and act the super hero for a bunch of journalists.

Not for a bunch of journalists. For the fans. Here's what Doug Nye wrote at the time - Doug is of course deeply involved in the organisation of the FoS:

Incidentally, at Goodwood Ralf Schumacher was a grotesque disappointment to many of his fans. He behaved like a completely spoiled little jerk virtually all weekend - even to the point of the Williams-BMW mechanics not even bothering to apologise for his behaviour, but simply castigating him for it as a complete spoilsport. He complained about the crowds, demanded to know what all those common people were doing in his paddock space, and refused to sign the standard RAC event disclaimer form without his lawyer's advice... Once he received the advice he still refused to sign and he was on the point of being told to funicular away off our site when the RAC stepped in and arranged a special waiver to enable him to make the appearance that by this time only BMW seemed to have any vestigial interest in him staging. Even then he drove like a disinterested plonker, and between times either closeted himself morosely away from the public in the driver's club, or shut himself in the Williams transporter, bleating "I'm not interested in old cars anyway...". Someone, perhaps, who has forgotten his roots, and his income's reason to be?

The only reason that article was written by Mike Lawrence was because he was prepared to be outspoken about Ralf's attitude and because he himself didn't mind getting on the wrong side of Bernie and possibly getting his media accreditation cancelled. I know several others wanted to write something but decided against it.

If Ralf didn't want to go, then he should have told Williams and BMW that, not turned up anyway and then acted like a prat.

[mkoscevic]

Those battles with Michael during 2001 were seriously good.

Ralf was a very talented and fast F1 driver, but couldn't keep himself on a very high level race after race, season after season.

After 2004... perhaps huge crash at Indy that year changed him.

[holiday]

Ralf was overinsulted for exactly two reasons:
1. He was the convenient alternative target for those who wanted to hit out at Michael, but could not do so because he was untouchable in terms of performance and was wary in his off-track behaviour.
2. His character never sat well with the Anglos, it was a classic misunderstanding. He was very open, but also often in an undiplomatic way, that came across as being a brat to many people, also in Germany.

Last year, on the occasion of Michael's 300th GP, both took part in a lengthy TV interview and he was by far the more interesting conversationalist. He was very open about not having achieved in f1 what he aimed for, but he did not give the impression of being embittered. As he rightly put it, compared to Michael's stellar career, almost everybody else looks like below par.

[Baddoer]

A man who was never fully understood. With a hot wife.

[monaco2]

Two episodes which I recall about the Schumacher brothers --

*How stoic they looked on the podium when they raced and won, right after their mother passed on.

*How Michael kept looking back at the scene of the Indy crash, while he drove on with the race, not knowing how hurt his brother was.

Also, a few fans were waiting for Michael to return to his hotel in Montreal after the GP, only to be told by his Ferrari team that Michael had gone on to have dinner with his brother.

Quite a strong bond for these brothers who happened to be competing racers!

[Vitesse2]

Ralf was overinsulted for exactly two reasons:
1. He was the convenient alternative target for those who wanted to hit out at Michael, but could not do so because he was untouchable in terms of performance and was wary in his off-track behaviour.
2. His character never sat well with the Anglos, it was a classic misunderstanding. He was very open, but also often in an undiplomatic way, that came across as being a brat to many people, also in Germany.

When Michael first arrived in F1 he too was an arrogant a**ehole. Willi Weber took him in hand and managed to change his public persona - helped by his very obvious talent, which helped to smooth over the flaws. Never managed to change his fashion sense though ...

Last year, on the occasion of Michael's 300th GP, both took part in a lengthy TV interview and he was by far the more interesting conversationalist. He was very open about not having achieved in f1 what he aimed for, but he did not give the impression of being embittered. As he rightly put it, compared to Michael's stellar career, almost everybody else looks like below par.

I agree that Ralf has got better at PR in recent years, probably thanks to his closer association with Mercedes in their home market. Perhaps he finally saw the error of his ways - or Haug and Weber insisted. But those of us outside Germany see very little of him nowadays.

[ardbeg]

Two episodes which I recall about the Schumacher brothers --

*How stoic they looked on the podium when they raced and won, right after their mother passed on.

*How Michael kept looking back at the scene of the Indy crash, while he drove on with the race, not knowing how hurt his brother was.

Also, a few fans were waiting for Michael to return to his hotel in Montreal after the GP, only to be told by his Ferrari team that Michael had gone on to have dinner with his brother.

Quite a strong bond for these brothers who happened to be competing racers!

You mean they are both reasonably human? Seriously, had it been my brother I would not have looked at the scene from a distance I would have been there, by his side, and nobody could have stopped me from getting there. Had it been my mother I would not have been racing.

[Mauseri]

"Ralf Schumacher is as fast as he is unpleasant" -Alex Zanardi

It always makes me wonder how pleasant are people making such comments about people who clearly struggle being human.

[sopa]

You mean they are both reasonably human?

Who would have thought that.

[Prost1997T]

Consistent and Ralf Schumacher in the same sentence? Thought I'd entered an alternate universe for a minute. Fast yes, but wild - even in his best season, 1999, he had 3 or 4 retirements attributable to driver error.

Indeed, Ralf's main weakness was his habit of binning it at inopportune moments. He was a menace on the track in 1997 (review the Italian GP for an example). As for Spa 1998, he wasn't even close - a timely safety car erased a 30 second lead for Hill (not to mention a backmarker clipped Hill's car and damaged it). I suggest people check what happened in the first third of the race, because it was obvious who was superior on that occasion. In the second part of 98 Ralf definitely had some good drives though (Silverstone, Monza).

While both of them made some costly mistakes, I would give the edge to Montoya during the Williams years (especially in 2003).

Trulli had the upper hand in the 05 season (two 2nd places and a 3rd in the first half) but suffered from poor reliability. Ralf was quite good in 2006, but in 07 he declined and the errors crept back in.

Edited by Prost1997T, 15 August 2013 - 10:49.

[SonJR]

His most impressive season to me was his 1999 year with Williams. Not a brilliant car, but he squished every last bit out of it. I think the fact that he was still young and hungry then really helped.

[redreni]

Consistent and Ralf Schumacher in the same sentence? Thought I'd entered an alternate universe for a minute. Fast yes, but wild - even in his best season, 1999, he had 3 or 4 retirements attributable to driver error.

Indeed, Ralf's main weakness was his habit of binning it at inopportune moments. He was a menace on the track in 1997 (review the Italian GP for an example). As for Spa 1998, he wasn't even close - a timely safety car erased a 30 second lead for Hill (not to mention a backmarker clipped Hill's car and damaged it). I suggest people check what happened in the first third of the race, because it was obvious who was superior on that occasion. In the second part of 98 Ralf definitely had some good drives though (Silverstone, Monza).

While both of them made some costly mistakes, I would give the edge to Montoya during the Williams years (especially in 2003).

Trulli had the upper hand in the 05 season (two 2nd places and a 3rd in the first half) but suffered from poor reliability. Ralf was quite good in 2006, but in 07 he declined and the errors crept back in.

Ralf came up short in qualifying in Spa 1998 - he blamed traffic on his final run, but his previous runs were not as quick as they should have been.

But to suggest he was anything other than vastly superior to Hill in the wet conditions on the Sunday, and after all it's the Sunday that counts, is to lose touch with reality in my opinion. He reeled Hill in very quickly then got the call to say he couldn't pass. It's also worth noting that, on the first start, Hill avoided the melee by, in his own words, closing his eyes and praying, while Ralf avoided it by very good judgement. It's true that Ralf lost ground to Hill in the first part of the race which is not a surprise when he'd qualified so poorly - he was held up by being stuck in the pack. He bided his time and made sure he was there at the end, which on a wet race day at Spa is never a bad thing.

[DutchQuicksilver]

His most impressive season to me was his 1999 year with Williams. Not a brilliant car, but he squished every last bit out of it. I think the fact that he was still young and hungry then really helped.

2000 was okay as well. It was clearly a season between Ferrari and McLaren, but Ralf managed to score the odd podium now and then. Too bad he had loads of retirements that season as well.

[BrawnGeePee]

That 2004 Indy GP crash was the very turning point that made him never the same again...

[EvanRainer]

Judging by the posts on this thread, Ralf is anything but underrated. He never did anything "impressive", are you kidding me? The only accolade I can give him is most boring driver.

In today's F1 field, he isn't even 2nd tier.

[redreni]

Judging by the posts on this thread, Ralf is anything but underrated. He never did anything "impressive", are you kidding me? The only accolade I can give him is most boring driver.

In today's F1 field, he isn't even 2nd tier.

So you were not impressed by anything he ever did in F1? His performance at Spa in 1998, or Nurburgring in 99, or Imola or Montreal in 01, or Nurburgring or Magny Cours in 03, no? And you are more impressed by second-tier drivers on the 2013 grid like, presumably, Di Resta, Sutil, Hulkenburg? Way to prove the OP right...

[Group B]

So you were not impressed by anything he ever did in F1? His performance at Spa in 1998, or Nurburgring in 99, or Imola or Montreal in 01, or Nurburgring or Magny Cours in 03, no? And you are more impressed by second-tier drivers on the 2013 grid like, presumably, Di Resta, Sutil, Hulkenburg? Way to prove the OP right...

Indeed. On a good day for both Ralf would hand di Resta his arse on a silver platter.

[SCEPurple]

Ralf can at least say he was half of the most successful set of siblings in World Championship history, as he and his brother have 7 titles between them.

Haha, great post.

[Mauseri]

Ralf can at least say he was half of the most successful set of siblings in World Championship history, as he and his brother have 7 titles between them.

Maybe he is also the most succesfull less succesfull sibling on his own, without need to split results between him and the Michael?

[scheivlak]

Maybe he is also the most succesfull less succesfull sibling on his own, without need to split results between him and the Michael?

Winner of 6 GPs, 4th in both the 2001 and 2002 WDC standings - that's indeed a lot better than, say, either of the Fabi brothers, Wilson Fittipaldi or the lesser Scheckter.

Edited by scheivlak, 15 August 2013 - 21:58.

[Knot]

Monza (2003) was before Indy crash. I liked Ralfie, I cheered when he won his first GP, however I think his crashes ended his career. in 2007 both Trulli and Ralf sucked, one had 8 points, other 5. I also remember that once Trulli and Ralfie were teammates commentators said that when car sucks, Ralf gets more out of it than Trulli and that shows, i was rather surprised when Toyota signed Trulli after 2006

Thanks. I got it bass ackwards.

[Tenmantaylor]

most succesfull less succesfull sibling

[P123]

Not sure if it is factually correct but I read somewhere that If you remove all the races Ralf Schumacher missed at Williams, he has better record against Montoya.

It's not.

[P123]

That 2004 Indy GP crash was the very turning point that made him never the same again...

I don't agree with that. He was 2nd in Japan, his second race after coming back. And he had solid seasons in 2005 and 2006. Trouble was Toyota went backwards in 2007 and it did at times look like Ralf was only turning up to collect his hefty pay cheque.

[ensign14]

Winner of 6 GPs, 4th in both the 2001 and 2002 WDC standings - that's indeed a lot better than, say, either of the Fabi brothers, Wilson Fittipaldi or the lesser Scheckter.

The wrong Fabi made it in F1.

[HP]

Its always hard to stand in the wings of a successful brother. And I think that struggle contributed to his perceived grumpiness. After the expectations and pressure were gone, it looks as if RS is a decent bloke.

Besides. I've read reports that he was as quick, and sometimes quicker than his brother in his carting days. But those who disliked RS (many on account of his brother) rather choose to post images from that time, that weren't very flattering for Ralf.

Anyhow someone who won several F1 races can't be that bad as racer.

And I'm sure Montoya being his teammate can't have helped either. Not because of the on track happenings, but Montoya running around with his lawyers to make sure he get's the same treatment, which he actually got anyway, didn't sit well with Ralf. Montoya on account of his previous successes, and not being MS brother got away most the time with his antics, Ralf was stuck in between all of that. I can understand why he rather felt grumpy. Add to it, there were more expectations form general fans (not fans of him) about his behavior.

In the end I think he had a lot of talent, but too many expectations on him. And at some point he realized that he won't be able to meet those expectations. Fast forward a few years, now he seems to be comfortable with what he is doing, less expectation on him, and oh wonder, he seems to have become decent. Well what changed are expectations. Ralf was always OK, if one wanted to accept him the way he was. Sure he never had the consistency of the outstanding drivers in F1, but there are anyway only a few who can deliver at top level consistently, so he's hardly an exception.

[HP]

I don't agree with that. He was 2nd in Japan, his second race after coming back. And he had solid seasons in 2005 and 2006. Trouble was Toyota went backwards in 2007 and it did at times look like Ralf was only turning up to collect his hefty pay cheque.

Had Toyota turned into a real front contender, we might have seen another Ralf. To me that season looked like he realized he was never going to win a championship. Very similar attitude to Damon Hill, when he lost his fire. Can't blame them though, that's human.

[Hans V]

Ralf Schumacher was a blindingly quick racing driver when everything was right for him, the setup, the tyres, the team, his mood and the stars above. Unfortunaltely for him these things clicked only a few times a season, but when it happend he was was seriously good. He wasn't particularly good at racing wheel to wheel either. I believe this is a result of having spent his formative years in the absolute best equipment (thanks to Micheal and Willy Weber) and rarerly had to fight his way to the front. To me he is in the same mold as Fisichella, Alesi, Frentzen and JPM; naturally fast, but no idea why - and therefore inconsistent.

[Force Ten]

Ralf came up short in qualifying in Spa 1998 - he blamed traffic on his final run, but his previous runs were not as quick as they should have been.

But to suggest he was anything other than vastly superior to Hill in the wet conditions on the Sunday, and after all it's the Sunday that counts, is to lose touch with reality in my opinion. He reeled Hill in very quickly then got the call to say he couldn't pass. It's also worth noting that, on the first start, Hill avoided the melee by, in his own words, closing his eyes and praying, while Ralf avoided it by very good judgement. It's true that Ralf lost ground to Hill in the first part of the race which is not a surprise when he'd qualified so poorly - he was held up by being stuck in the pack. He bided his time and made sure he was there at the end, which on a wet race day at Spa is never a bad thing.

Yeah. Somehow I've always been amazed how quickly even the backmarkers reel in the leaders. Behind safety cars. It really shows who is who on a wet race day.

[ensign14]

At Spa 1998, between lap 3 and the show car, Ralf Schumacher was never within 10 seconds of Damon Hill. The gap was increasing slightly just before the SC (it was 16 seconds when MS hit DC), presumably because Ralf had stopped earlier and his tyres were worn.

[redreni]

Yeah. Somehow I've always been amazed how quickly even the backmarkers reel in the leaders. Behind safety cars. It really shows who is who on a wet race day.

Ralf ran 7th early on which meant he lost time to the leaders hand over fist, and after he pitted on lap 11 his gap to Hill was 55s. Over the next 5 laps Ralf reduced his gap to Hill by something in the order of 15s, or 3 seconds a lap, despite a much heavier fuel load. After Hill‘s stop on lap 16 the gap was only 20s. In the process Ralf jumped the cars ahead of him taking 3rd place. Over the next 7 laps he took a further 10s out of Hill to reduce the gap to 10s, all without the aid of the SC.

When the SC came out on lap 24 for the second major incident of the day to be caused by Coulthard, the collision with MSC, Ralf pitted and Hill didn‘t, which is the only reason why you see a 30s gap between them at that point. The gap reflects the fact that Ralf was fuelled to the finish and Hill wasn‘t. Hill was actually lucky there was a further SC for the Fisichella/Nakano crash otherwise Hill would have had to pit under green flag conditions and Ralf would have won easily. As it was Hill pitted without losing the lead and Ralf‘s gain from the two SC periods was less than 10s. His pace relative to Hill prior to that suggests he could easily have recovered that time had the track stayed green. It‘s not his fault the SC came out.

[ensign14]

Hill pitting under the SC being "lucky" is surely just matching RS' similar luck in doing so. But it was more like 5 seconds in 6 laps, the gap before the MS/DC unpleasantness was still north of 16 seconds, even with Hill having the heavier car. Hill lost a heck of a lot of time that last lap, presumably being more cautious in the debris.

[Force Ten]

What I find funny is how the "measure of Ralf Schumacher the racing driver" somehow always comes to "he should have won Spa because (insert elaborate explanation here)". It was one race in his 10 year career.

Edited by Force Ten, 16 August 2013 - 09:01.

[redreni]

What I find funny is how the "measure of Ralf Schumacher the racing driver" somehow always comes to "he should have won Spa because (insert elaborate explanation here)". It was one race in his 10 year career.

Hey, I'm not disagreeing with the majority of posters on this forum - he was a good driver but not great, he lacked consistency, he was very good on his day. That's all I'm saying.

I didn't bring up Spa I was responding to the suggestion that he didn't have the pace to win and he only caught Hill because the Safety Car came out, which when you look at the times, isn't true. In clear air Ralf was considerably faster than Hill. And at the end of lap 23, when MSC was still running, before the incident, the gap Hill to Ralf was 10.4s. Not sure why Hill lost so much on that lap (the gap was over 17s on lap 22) but it wouldn't have been due to debris from the Coulthard/MSC incident as that happened on lap 24 and Hill and Ralf were on the lead lap so wouldn't have passed the scene until their 24th lap. Schumacher's lead over Hill was 34 seconds so he would have been having his accident at Pouhon at about the same time as the Jordans were crossing the line at the end of their 23rd lap, but the SC wouldn't have been deployed until after that. Perhaps Hill made an error? But taking 10.4s as gap on lap 23, and a notional half a second as the gap over the line at the restart after the SC came in, Ralf gained less than 10s from the SC, but he was clearly fast enough to have made that up on his own had the track stayed green.

Ralf only lost so much time to Hill in the first place because, rather than risk overtaking Frentzen, Alesi or Villeneuve when he was being held up by them, he bided his time and got them on the first round of stops. That's about risk management as much as anything; the probability of a SC was known to be high, there had already been a SC and a red flag previously that afternoon, it was raining very hard, and so I don't think it's particularly lucky if you choose to bide your time and then the SC comes out and you get some time back to the leader - that possibility is one of the factors you take into account when you elect to bide your time and not try to overtake.

Those are the facts. And by the way, I'm not saying Ralf should have won, only that he could have won. I'm all for team orders and if I'd been Eddie Jordan and I'd heard that message from Damon Hill about fighting Ralf and ending up with nothing, I'd have done exactly the same thing. It was a clever bit of communication by Damon and I don't begrudge him his win. But he couldn't have won that race without the team calling Ralf off - that's why Hill played the card he did.

[Force Ten]

And by the way, I'm not saying Ralf should have won, only that he could have won.
...
But he couldn't have won that race without the team calling Ralf off - that's why Hill played the card he did.

Ah yeah. Remember. Hill thought he had a puncture. That's why he was slow on that particular lap. He had an incident with a backmarker

So your maths is based on the fact that he would have lost 7 seconds a lap from lap 23 onwards would have been 7 seconds a lap towards the race end every lap. Based on that math I see now clearly how Ralf really deserved the Spa win that time.

Also. Ralf COULD have won. Hill COULD NOT have won. Who else COULD HAVE won besides Ralf then, if it COULD NOT have been Hill? There seems to be a flaw in your maths there.

Edited by Force Ten, 16 August 2013 - 11:56.

[redreni]

Ah yeah. Remember. Hill thought he had a puncture. That's why he was slow on that particular lap. He had an incident with a backmarker

So your maths is based on the fact that he would have lost 7 seconds a lap from lap 23 onwards would have been 7 seconds a lap. Based on that math I see now clearly how Ralf really deserved the Spa win that time.

Also. Ralf COULD have won. Hill COULD NOT have won. Who else COULD HAVE won besides Ralf then, if it COULD NOT have been Hill? There seems to be a flaw in your maths there.

Or a flaw in your reading skills, perhaps? Ralf could have won without team orders, and Hill could not have won without team orders. In fact there were team orders and Hill won, which as I say I don't begrudge him. Nothing illogical or inconsistent or hard to understand there, is there?

And no, of course I'm not extrapolating from a 7s gain on 1 particular lap to say that Ralf would have been 7s/lap on average quicker for the rest of the race, I'm saying that if you look at the laps where Ralf was not being held up by Frentzen or Alesi or Villeneuve, and before he caught up to Hill i.e. when both he and Hill were in clear air in green flag conditions, Ralf was considerably faster on average, even when on a heavier fuel load. Look at the laptimes.

[Force Ten]

Or a flaw in your reading skills, perhaps? Ralf could have won without team orders, and Hill could not have won without team orders. In fact there were team orders and Hill won, which as I say I don't begrudge him. Nothing illogical or inconsistent or hard to understand there, is there?

Could means, that someone other could either. Could not means... well, what it means. So Ralf could, who else could, as Hill, according to you, couldn't?

And to think that English is MY second language.

[redreni]

Could means, that someone other could either. Could not means... well, what it means. So Ralf could, who else could, as Hill, according to you, couldn't?

And to think that English is MY second language.

It shows, mate. What's your first language - I dabble in German so if you're a German speaker let me know, we might have better luck communicating, because I'm genuinely not sure what you mean.

"Could have won" in this context means "would have won if x" where x is a counter-factual scenario. By saying "could have" instead of "would have" I merely relieve myself of having to add "if there had been no team orders". I don't mean that if there were no team orders, Ralf might not have won.

It's perfectly ordinary usage, trust me, English is my first language and my job basically involves playing around with it, so I'm pretty good with it.

[Force Ten]

It shows, mate. What's your first language - I dabble in German so if you're a German speaker let me know, we might have better luck communicating, because I'm genuinely not sure what you mean.

"Could have won" in this context means "would have won if x"

Yes, what you meant was "would have won" and you said "could have won" as it was softer and did not imply you are a know it all. I understood IT from the first post of yours. It was basically dishonest and that ticked me off.

If he could have won somebody else also could have won. If the only thing in the whole wide universe stopping him from winning were the team orders at Jordan as you were so nice to point out he still WOULD have won without them.

Edited by Force Ten, 16 August 2013 - 12:34.

[redreni]

Yes, what you meant was "would have won" and you said "could have won" as it was softer and did not imply you are a know it all. I understood IT from the first post of yours. It was basically dishonest and that ticked me off.

If he could have won somebody else also could have won. If the only thing in the whole wide universe stopping him from winning were the team orders at Jordan as you were so nice to point out he still WOULD have won without them.

It's not dishonest, mate, any more than a German-speaker is dishonest if he says "Wollen Sie bitte hier warten?" when he actually means "Sie muss hier warten". What is phrased as a question can be a polite request.

"Could" refers to a possibility, namely the theoretically possible world in which there wasn't a team order. It does not necessarily refer only to a possibility, within that possible world, that Ralf would have won the race. It can refer to a certainty that he would have won the race, within the possible world in which there are no team orders - it still makes sense to say "could have" in that circumstance.

[Jejking]

Two episodes which I recall about the Schumacher brothers --

*How stoic they looked on the podium when they raced and won, right after their mother passed on.

*How Michael kept looking back at the scene of the Indy crash, while he drove on with the race, not knowing how hurt his brother was.

Also, a few fans were waiting for Michael to return to his hotel in Montreal after the GP, only to be told by his Ferrari team that Michael had gone on to have dinner with his brother.

Quite a strong bond for these brothers who happened to be competing racers!

I truly hoped you didn't remember that, since Ralf finished 4th in Imola 2003 and not on the podium. Second one was curious though.

Btw: i always thought it was Michael in that Williams during GP of Nurburgring 1999. It was simply an epic drive, he drove like crazy and was only wasted by that flat tyre. What a waste!

Edited by Jejking, 16 August 2013 - 13:05.

[Bleu]

There wasn't SC for Schumacher/Coulthard crash.

[SpaMaster]

I think he gained some from his last name and lose some from his last name.

[george1981]

Ralf Schumacher was a blindingly quick racing driver when everything was right for him, the setup, the tyres, the team, his mood and the stars above. Unfortunaltely for him these things clicked only a few times a season, but when it happend he was was seriously good. He wasn't particularly good at racing wheel to wheel either. I believe this is a result of having spent his formative years in the absolute best equipment (thanks to Micheal and Willy Weber) and rarerly had to fight his way to the front. To me he is in the same mold as Fisichella, Alesi, Frentzen and JPM; naturally fast, but no idea why - and therefore inconsistent.

I agree, I think on his day Ralf was unbeatable even by Michael. But Ralf certainly didn't have the same winning instinct as Michael, perhaps as you point out because he had it easy whereas Michael had to fight for everything early on.
What really harmed him was his accident at Indy, he was never the same after that.

[redreni]

There wasn't SC for Schumacher/Coulthard crash.

Ah, right, that explains a lot. So the true picture is Ralf got the gap down to 10.4s in the manner I described by lap 23 but there were then several further laps under green flag conditions before the SC came out. On lap 24 Ralf further closed the gap to 10.2, on lap 25 he inexplicably lost 5.1s although, judging by Autosport‘s race report, that might have had something to do with Hill taking a shortcut at the bus stop. Either way that made the gap 16.1s, on lap 26 the previous trend resumed and the gap was cut to 14.3s, then Ralf pitted on lap 27. The gap was recorded as 15.7s but you have to remember Ralf would have crossed the line in pit lane so you can‘t read too much into that figure, although it won‘t be miles off the true gap as cars entering the pits used to miss out the bus stop which tended to negate a lot of what they‘d lose because of the pit lane speed limit. Ralf‘s time loss from pitting would therefore show up in the times for the next lap. The SC came out for the Fisichella/Nakano crash on lap 28 and Hill pitted at the end of the lap. That‘s when the 29.4s gap was recorded; I.e. the gap was predominently due to the fact that, as they crossed the line, although Hill had entered pit lane he hadn‘t actually done his stop, while Ralf had done his under green flag conditions on the previous lap. The SC boards and flags would also have distorted the picture by making both drivers slow down on lap 28, especially Ralf, who had to cover more distance under full course yellows than Hill and had to pass Fisi‘s smouldering car on the main straight, which Hill avoided by pitting. In other words, the 29.4s gap is meaningless and it is nonsense to say that Ralf gained half a minute under the SC. If not for the SC Hill would still have needed to pit and all things being equal the gap would have gone back to what it was before Ralf‘s second stop i.e.14s and falling. There were 16 laps left. I suspect Hill would have needed to miss the chicane a few more times to keep his lead had things stayed clean and green...

[Jimmy]

I don't think he was underrated. He was beaten by his team mates more than half the time he was in F1.

[holiday]

I don't think he was underrated. He was beaten by his team mates more than half the time he was in F1.

Poor Heidfeld then, he did beat most of his team-mates, yet remains underrated too.

[Bruce]

I think the correct thread heading was "Ralf Schumacher - Over-rated and under-insulted?"