Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 6 votes

How would today's top drivers have done as Schumacher's team-mate in the 90s and early 00s?


  • Please log in to reply
425 replies to this topic

#1 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 16:47

Imagine drivers like Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel etc. had started their careers a bit earlier, and were given a drive as Schumacher's team-mate as their first big opportunity - so before they'd really established themselves. So instead of Lehto in 1994, Herbert in 1995, Irvine in 1996 or perhaps Barrichello in 2000. How would they have done? Obviously you can answer separately for each driver and each particular time when they could have become his team-mate. I think there's different possible answers for different reasons.

Did Schumacher have the team favouring him to the extent that no-one would have had a reasonable chance, however good they were?
Was it simply that none of his team-mates were good enough, and a top driver would have been able to challenge him?
Was Schumacher's superiority at that time about being able to handle those particular cars better than anyone else, and would today's top drivers have struggled to cope irrespective of pace in a car that handles well?

And how would it have affected their later careers?

Advertisement

#2 Briz

Briz
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: March 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 16:58

7 year old Vettel would get destroyed by a 25 year old MSC



#3 Thomas99

Thomas99
  • Member

  • 2,581 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:01

Alonso would run Michael hard, Hamilton would match his speed on occasion, unsure how the RBR duo would go

#4 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,683 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:04

Would have been more interesting if MS had been paired with a top driver from his own era, rather than the lower tier subservient drivers he had.



#5 Schumster

Schumster
  • Member

  • 288 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:10

Would have been more interesting if MS had been paired with a top driver from his own era, rather than the lower tier subservient drivers he had.

 

Who was there? There was only Hakkinen and would you really want him on your team when you've passed up on multiple WDCs to build up Ferrari only for someone else to come along to make things difficult? And Hakkinen was comfortable at McLaren, good relationship with Dennis and any move to Ferrari would be dodgy with Brawn/Byrne/Todt at the helm.



#6 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 476 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:16

Vettel: "That move was unfair. Tell Michael to let me pass."

Roque: "Concentrate on your race, Seb. Michael is one lap ahead!"

 

 

Alonso: "Michael didn't leave the space."

.... "Michael left the track. Tell Charlie."

 

 

Hamilton: "Michael passed me without DRS. How is this even possible?"



#7 DavidHeath461

DavidHeath461
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:29


Haha brilliant.

I wish we had team radio in those days.

#8 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,649 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:29

They would have difficulty handling the manual/sequential gearbox. ;) Schumacher in his prime was near undefeatable.



#9 Tourgott

Tourgott
  • Member

  • 476 posts
  • Joined: December 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:44

I wish we had team radio in those days.

 

You mean something like this?  :lol:

 

Would love to know what Schumi thought here:

 

 

"Damn you fire. Lost one position."

 

;)



#10 P123

P123
  • Member

  • 8,701 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:46

Would have been more interesting if MS had been paired with a top driver from his own era, rather than the lower tier subservient drivers he had.


You had Mika, and maybe JV. Then Hill. The rest were Irvine/ DC level, so slim pickings.

#11 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,076 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 22 July 2014 - 17:55

I think Raikkonen would have been the most successful as long as he adapted to the car. I could picture him winning plenty of races between 1996 and 1999 and a title or two between 2000 and 2006.

 

Alonso and Hamilton, I suspect, would not have endured sharing the team with Schumacher, but they definitely would not have lacked in speed and/or racecraft. I'm unsure of how Vettel would do.

 

With any of them it would have been much more exciting than it was with Irvine, slow and useless, or Barrichello, fast but too fragile.



#12 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:01

I always thought Herbert was an interesting example. To me at least, he looked like he was a really good driver and could get the job done in a top car. His pace matched up well compared to Hakkinen at Lotus, and no-one else troubled him, including Zanardi. He then went from Lotus to Ligier for one race in 1994 where he qualified and finished ahead of Panis, who many people rate quite highly pre-1997 accident.

He then joined Schumacher at Benetton and looked a bit rubbish. Was that really because he was rubbish all along or because of how the Benetton team worked? Then again, when he left Benetton, he never looked brilliant either against drivers such as Frentzen, Barrichello an Irvine. So it's difficult to draw a firm conclusion based on that. Then when his career was over, people retrospectively blamed his F3000 accident at Brands Hatch for his career not being more successful.

Irvine is a driver that some people have rated highly at times, but he was mostly woeful in comparison to Schumacher. But why was he suddenly able to be quick at Japan in 1997 when the team wanted him to be? I don't think the fuel load could account for it. But on the other hand, it seems odd that the team would want him to be slow in 1999 when he was their championship hope, and Schumacher was still much faster than him when he returned from his accident.

Also, I remember Irvine saying when he joined Ferrari that no driver should be more than half a second behind his team-mate, and after the first couple of races, he was still quite cocky about the whole thing. But then at Argentina, the car was quite tricky to handle and Schumacher hammered him by about 1.5 seconds in qualifying, and apparently Irvine was very impressed by that ability. So regardless of how quick they are in their current cars, which of today's drivers would have matched Schumacher there?

Personally, I'm undecided about much of this. F1 is a very unmeritocratic sport. The only "true" comparison point a driver has is his team-mate, and even that gets screwed up if there's any bias in a team. So it leaves you with very little to go on.

#13 Risil

Risil
  • Member

  • 14,430 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:06

Being Schumacher's teammate at Benetton/Ferrari wasn't much of an opportunity really.



#14 TomNokoe

TomNokoe
  • Member

  • 5,360 posts
  • Joined: July 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:08

I think Raikkonen would have been the most successful as long as he adapted to the car. I could picture him winning plenty of races between 1996 and 1999 and a title or two between 2000 and 2006.

Alonso and Hamilton, I suspect, would not have endured sharing the team with Schumacher, but they definitely would not have lacked in speed and/or racecraft. I'm unsure of how Vettel would do.

With any of them it would have been much more exciting than it was with Irvine, slow and useless, or Barrichello, fast but too fragile.


Hamilton, whom is famous for being completely entitled to number 1 status against Alonso, Button and Rosberg, oh wait.

#15 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:11

I think todays top drivers are better than Michael ever was, it's only natural that every generation steps it up a notch. Compared to the rest of the feild though Michael was, in his prime, further ahead than anyone today could dream of.


Edited by ollebompa, 22 July 2014 - 18:21.


#16 Cesc

Cesc
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:15

I think todays top drivers are better than Michael ever where, it's only natural that every generation steps it up a notch. Compared to the rest of the feild Michael was, in his prime, further ahead than anyone today could dream of.

 

Not sure about this, but it reminds me a little bit like in MotoGP. Rossi was the absolute master, but he had very little oposition for many years (Gibernau, come on!) until the new kids arrived and started to get the wins (Pedrosa first, later Lorenzo and finally Stoner) and little by little they were gaining room...Marquez is another story (galaxy).



#17 DavidHeath461

DavidHeath461
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:17

You mean something like this? :lol:
https://www.youtube....h?v=lTsiM4MXYtM

Would love to know what Schumi thought here:
https://www.youtube....h?v=i6sNeYo5uvQ


;)


Yes! Also would have loved to have heard the team radio during Suzuka 97, Jerez 97 and Spa 98. And any team radio from Alesi during the mid 90s.

#18 DavidHeath461

DavidHeath461
  • Member

  • 326 posts
  • Joined: May 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:20

I think Raikkonen would have been the most successful as long as he adapted to the car. I could picture him winning plenty of races between 1996 and 1999 and a title or two between 2000 and 2006.

Alonso and Hamilton, I suspect, would not have endured sharing the team with Schumacher, but they definitely would not have lacked in speed and/or racecraft. I'm unsure of how Vettel would do.

With any of them it would have been much more exciting than it was with Irvine, slow and useless, or Barrichello, fast but too fragile.


Ferrari of the late 90s under steered like a bitch. No way was Kimi winning races or getting close to Schumi in those years.

Interesting thing about Alonso was that he came very close to signing for Ferrari in 2002.

#19 Cesc

Cesc
  • Member

  • 940 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:28

Ferrari of the late 90s under steered like a bitch. No way was Kimi winning races or getting close to Schumi in those years.

Interesting thing about Alonso was that he came very close to signing for Ferrari in 2002.

Wasn't in 2000?

 

After Alonso's win at Spa in the old Formula 3000 in 2000, Flavio Briatore took the lead over Ferrari, but I think it was around those days. Not sure though.

 

ABout the topic. I can't find a proper answer. Alonso is capable of anything, Hamilton has a tremendous "raw speed", so he could have been difficult to handle by Schumacher in qualis specially. Kimi and Vettel...well, I'm more skeptical about these two.



Advertisement

#20 jjcale

jjcale
  • Member

  • 7,307 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:42

I think FA is one of the best drivers ever in F1 ... proper top 5 material ....  but he is a politician like MSC and does not like to fight team mates so who knows which of them would win.

 

As for the others they either dont have the talent or the consistency to get close to MSC over the course of a season.... 



#21 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 10,076 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 22 July 2014 - 18:44

Ferrari of the late 90s under steered like a bitch. No way was Kimi winning races or getting close to Schumi in those years.

Interesting thing about Alonso was that he came very close to signing for Ferrari in 2002.

 

Possibly, yes. But remember there was unlimited testing and development. It's not like they would be locked in with whatever car first hit the track.

 

Who knows?



#22 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 19:55

I always thought Herbert was an interesting example. To me at least, he looked like he was a really good driver and could get the job done in a top car. His pace matched up well compared to Hakkinen at Lotus, and no-one else troubled him, including Zanardi. He then went from Lotus to Ligier for one race in 1994 where he qualified and finished ahead of Panis, who many people rate quite highly pre-1997 accident.

He then joined Schumacher at Benetton and looked a bit rubbish. Was that really because he was rubbish all along or because of how the Benetton team worked? Then again, when he left Benetton, he never looked brilliant either against drivers such as Frentzen, Barrichello an Irvine. So it's difficult to draw a firm conclusion based on that. Then when his career was over, people retrospectively blamed his F3000 accident at Brands Hatch for his career not being more successful.

 

Herbert's an interesting case as you say, I didn't follow him in F3000 but apparently pre-accident he was very highly rated, being spoken of as the next Jim Clark. In 92 at Lotus he outqualified Hakkinnen 9-7, Brundle, who drove with Schumacher and Hakkinnen  claims that Mika may have been the faster of the two over a single lap.

 

However, he did look average at times, maybe his injury counted against him in the sprint formula of F1 with re-fuelling, maybe getting the big break at Benetton and losing the drive did his head in, who knows.

 

One thing is certain though, Schumacher didn't like to compete on a level playing field, when Herbert outpaced him in a qually session in 95 he was immediately frozen out of Michaels telemetry whilst Schumacher still had access to his, when Irvine outqualified Schumacher at their first race for Ferrari in 96 he was frozen out of testing completely until it was established he wasn't a threat and who can forget Barrichello outqualifying Michael and having the chassis he used for qually taken from him by MS for the race.

 

I think of the current crop, Alonso would worry him the most, Hamilton's speed would have been enough but I think he would have blown a fuse with all the mind games.



#23 Cult

Cult
  • Member

  • 637 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:20

Herbert's an interesting case as you say, I didn't follow him in F3000 but apparently pre-accident he was very highly rated, being spoken of as the next Jim Clark. In 92 at Lotus he outqualified Hakkinnen 9-7, Brundle, who drove with Schumacher and Hakkinnen  claims that Mika may have been the faster of the two over a single lap.

 

However, he did look average at times, maybe his injury counted against him in the sprint formula of F1 with re-fuelling, maybe getting the big break at Benetton and losing the drive did his head in, who knows.

 

One thing is certain though, Schumacher didn't like to compete on a level playing field, when Herbert outpaced him in a qually session in 95 he was immediately frozen out of Michaels telemetry whilst Schumacher still had access to his, when Irvine outqualified Schumacher at their first race for Ferrari in 96 he was frozen out of testing completely until it was established he wasn't a threat and who can forget Barrichello outqualifying Michael and having the chassis he used for qually taken from him by MS for the race.

 

I think of the current crop, Alonso would worry him the most, Hamilton's speed would have been enough but I think he would have blown a fuse with all the mind games.

 

Brundle did say that Hakkinen was probably better over one lap but Schumacher had better results against Brundle. Brundle was at a better age against Schumacher and Schumacher was in his first complete year in F1 compared to Hakkinen's fourth.

 

The average gap was 1 second between Schumacher and Brundle and 0.75 seconds between Hakkinen and Brundle. That wasn't biased by any one off outliers, Schumacher was generally quicker in comparison most weekends especially qualifying sessions in the second half of the season.

 

Taking into account the last five comparable races of the 1992 and 1994 seasons:

 

Australia - MSC vs. BRU - 0.881s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.958s

Japan - MSC vs. BRU - 1.704s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.088s

Portugal - MSC vs. BRU - 0.728s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.405s

Italy - MSC vs. BRU - 0.922s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.405s

Belgium - MSC vs. BRU - 1.752s, HAK vs. BRU - 1.676s

 

Obvious flaw is this isn't a direct comparison but Schumacher certainly had the bigger upper hand.


Edited by Cult, 22 July 2014 - 20:28.


#24 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:24

Michael would still win.  If he was able to mix it up in his 40s...

 

He would beat Fred and Co.

 

He came in 1991 and was already beating the top guns Ayrton, Alain and Nigel....


Edited by George Costanza, 22 July 2014 - 20:25.


#25 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:27

Alonso would run Michael hard, Hamilton would match his speed on occasion, unsure how the RBR duo would go

 

Fred nearly lost the title to Michael at age 37.

 

And we all know that a 2006 Schumacher was NOT the 1996-2000 Schumacher he would have faced.

 

Schu wins.



#26 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:36

I think todays top drivers are better than Michael ever was, it's only natural that every generation steps it up a notch. Compared to the rest of the feild though Michael was, in his prime, further ahead than anyone today could dream of.

 

I really doubt that...

 

Why do people still talk about Fangio and how he was probably the greatest of all time?

 

I doubt Seb or Fred would push his Mercedes of 1954 to the limits, they would probably say its too rough. Do you think any driver would have done what Fangio did at the 1957 German GP? I think not.

 

Same for Ayrton's turbo cars. Ayrton would beat these guys pretty easily.


Edited by George Costanza, 22 July 2014 - 20:36.


#27 brett_sequeira

brett_sequeira
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:36

i think amongst the present crop of drivers the only driver who would give Schumacher a run for his money would be Alonso. Hamilton is fast but fragile mentally and Schumacher would have him for breakfast in mind games. Vettle i dont know i will be able to talk about vettle after this year. But we have seen Alonso drag the prancing mule to places it does not belong over the past few years. Mentally Alonso is good and knows how to adapt. All this is ofcourse that ferrari would give Alonso the same car as MS back in the day.



#28 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:39

i think amongst the present crop of drivers the only driver who would give Schumacher a run for his money would be Alonso. Hamilton is fast but fragile mentally and Schumacher would have him for breakfast in mind games. Vettle i dont know i will be able to talk about vettle after this year. But we have seen Alonso drag the prancing mule to places it does not belong over the past few years. Mentally Alonso is good and knows how to adapt. All this is ofcourse that ferrari would give Alonso the same car as MS back in the day.

 

I agree. Only Fred would give him a run. He had already done it.

 

Lewis is bloody fast but he's a little too inconsistent to challenge Schumacher in his prime.



#29 itsademo

itsademo
  • Member

  • 408 posts
  • Joined: December 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:48

not a chance, schue had a team and the FIA behind him rules bent and infractions ignored

the facts some like to ignore in their worship of history

Was he good of course, is he one of the greats in F1 without a doubt...

was he the best no way too many others helping him win when his talent failed and his mean streak took over and the fia just bent over

just like they did with another German more recently



#30 Longtimefan

Longtimefan
  • Member

  • 3,170 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:59

I think todays top drivers are better than Michael ever was, it's only natural that every generation steps it up a notch. Compared to the rest of the feild though Michael was, in his prime, further ahead than anyone today could dream of.

 

I'm not sure what to make of this tbh..

 

I'm willing to bet you've not been watching F1 long.



#31 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:59

A lot of people have been replying on the basis that they think Alonso, Hamilton etc. are as good as or better than Schumacher back then. But do you think it would have made a difference that they would have been coming into Schumacher's team with him as the established number 1? For example, I think Schumacher's team-mates at the time probably would have been closer to him had they both gone to a "neutral" team, say, Williams rather than them joining him at Benetton or Ferrari. I don't think Hill or Coulthard would have had a top flight career had their "big opportunity" been at Benetton in 1994.

#32 1Devil1

1Devil1
  • Member

  • 3,058 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 22 July 2014 - 20:59

not a chance, schue had a team and the FIA behind him rules bent and infractions ignored

the facts some like to ignore in their worship of history

Was he good of course, is he one of the greats in F1 without a doubt...

was he the best no way too many others helping him win when his talent failed and his mean streak took over and the fia just bent over

just like they did with another German more recently

 

Wow, worst post since a long time at this board  :up:


Edited by 1Devil1, 22 July 2014 - 21:00.


#33 Boing 2

Boing 2
  • Member

  • 2,537 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 21:04

Brundle did say that Hakkinen was probably better over one lap but Schumacher had better results against Brundle. Brundle was at a better age against Schumacher and Schumacher was in his first complete year in F1 compared to Hakkinen's fourth.

 

The average gap was 1 second between Schumacher and Brundle and 0.75 seconds between Hakkinen and Brundle. That wasn't biased by any one off outliers, Schumacher was generally quicker in comparison most weekends especially qualifying sessions in the second half of the season.

 

Taking into account the last five comparable races of the 1992 and 1994 seasons:

 

Australia - MSC vs. BRU - 0.881s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.958s

Japan - MSC vs. BRU - 1.704s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.088s

Portugal - MSC vs. BRU - 0.728s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.405s

Italy - MSC vs. BRU - 0.922s, HAK vs. BRU - 0.405s

Belgium - MSC vs. BRU - 1.752s, HAK vs. BRU - 1.676s

 

Obvious flaw is this isn't a direct comparison but Schumacher certainly had the bigger upper hand.

 

Interesting, do you have data for the complete seasons?



#34 brett_sequeira

brett_sequeira
  • Member

  • 2,723 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 22 July 2014 - 21:05

since this is hypothetical, my previous post is based on the hypothesis that Ferrari would be more like Mercedes today and we could see 2 drivers race.



#35 ollebompa

ollebompa
  • Member

  • 717 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 21:30

I'm not sure what to make of this tbh..

I'm willing to bet you've not been watching F1 long..


I'll try it a different way. Put a modern wordclass fotball player in a WC in the 1990's and he would be the best by far. That does not mean he's greater.

Do I think current drivers are greater? No, they are just building on what Michael did, he was the pioner.

Michael was my first and only hero. It is a childhood thing and no one is ever going to take his place, so i'm not trying to argue against him here, but i feel that with time things move forward.



#36 HaydenFan

HaydenFan
  • Member

  • 2,107 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 22 July 2014 - 21:36

Who was there? There was only Hakkinen and would you really want him on your team when you've passed up on multiple WDCs to build up Ferrari only for someone else to come along to make things difficult? And Hakkinen was comfortable at McLaren, good relationship with Dennis and any move to Ferrari would be dodgy with Brawn/Byrne/Todt at the helm.

 

And even still, Schumacher wouldn't have allowed it. Especially after joining Ferrari. Irvine never really rocked the boat, and Rubens was the ultimate team player. 

 

Even the likes of Alonso, Vettel, Rosberg, name it, they'd have been given a short leash. Push Schumacher too hard and welcome to the unemployment line. And you'll be "gifted" a few participation wins as a reward to playing the game. Starting in 2007 is when Ferrari started to really hurt. They seemingly gave Massa and Kimi a more equal footing as during the Schumacher era, and while paying off in '07, it fell apart afterwards. And while Massa was hurt and not quite on the same level as Alonso when the Spaniard joined the team, it allowed the team to again refocus on being essentially a one driver team. Worked well for a few seasons, but has never recovered. 



#37 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,212 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 22 July 2014 - 21:50

Schumacher in his prime worked harder than others. The team naturally gravitated towards him. You dont get the impression that primadonna Lewis or Alonso have the same work ethic or team comaraderie that Schumacher built up and had.

I remember reading stories about Michael going out at night and picking up pizzas in hia company Ferrari 456 GT and bringing them back to Maranello so they could eat and work at night. It is little details like that.

If Alonso had a melt down with Hamilton being so strong then Schumacher's consistency and team support would cause him to totally lose the plot.

If a old Schumacher matched a prime Rosberg - who in turn is giving Lewis fits - then a prime Schumacher would have buried him.

#38 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,654 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 21:51

Schumacher in his prime was something else.

There's a part of me that thinks that Alonso and Lewis might actually be on his level and Schumi just raced in a period with a less competitive grid, but I don't know. When I watch some of The Chin's old races, he just does some magic. The way he came in and was almost immediately putting himself amongst the greats is underappreciated by many today. He's won *multiple* world championships in 'not the fastest' cars and won many races against the odds.

Really tough question.

#39 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,721 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:06

A prime Schumacher was a close match for Clark or a prime Senna. Those are the top 3 drivers ever.

 

Today's drivers, bar Alonso wouldn't have stood a chance to be honest.



Advertisement

#40 Kimble

Kimble
  • Member

  • 566 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:19

PlatenGlass. Irvine was fast in Japan as he lived and raced there so knew Suzuka very well.

#41 Afterburner

Afterburner
  • Member

  • 3,559 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:22

Fred nearly lost the title to Michael at age 37.

And we all know that a 2006 Schumacher was NOT the 1996-2000 Schumacher he would have faced.

Schu wins.

This basically wraps it for me. MS was simply on another level.

#42 HeadFirst

HeadFirst
  • Member

  • 690 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:35

Given no team orders, I think Lewis, Fernando, Seb, and maybe Kimi would have challenged Schumie as team-mates. Of those I think Alonso is the only one who might have prevailed at times, but over-all I still think Michael would have emerged the victor.



#43 warp

warp
  • Member

  • 346 posts
  • Joined: November 13

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:44

 

He came in 1991 and was already beating the top guns Ayrton, Alain and Nigel....

 

This. Many people forget that Michael was the guy worrying the greatest ever Senna.

 

I think only Fernando would give a run for his money to a prime Schumy.



#44 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:47

 Ayrton would beat Michael in same cars I'd reckon. Alain Prost was great, but I don't think he'd have the pure speed to match Michael. Ayrton however did....

 

There is a reason why Senna vs Schumacher gets big debates even today.

Put them in the same cars, I think Ayrton gets pole 8 out 10. Race wise would be about even or 6/10 to Schumacher, except at Monaco or Brasil.

 

Fred is the only driver that Michael would have "feared." We know why since 2008 to be honest when the cars he had since that season were average at best.

 

Now we can argue who had the better season's Fred 2012 or Michael's 1997 season.... I'd argue Fred season was a little bit better. But the 1997 Ferrari was a 4th best car as well.


Edited by George Costanza, 22 July 2014 - 22:51.


#45 George Costanza

George Costanza
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 22 July 2014 - 22:57

People might overrate/underrate Mika's speed vs Michael in 1998-1999-2000 seasons, but Mika would give any driver today a great run for their money....

 

Remember the 2000 season qualifying battles with Schu? He was and could be very, very quick. He'd probably be quicker than Lewis today or anyone else...

 

Don't forget he beat Ayrton in 1993 in very first day at Portugal... Ayrton was not happy about it...



#46 spacekid

spacekid
  • Member

  • 2,678 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 22 July 2014 - 23:15

Michael Schumacher came in mid season in 1991 (and just think how tough rookies, or even experienced drivers, have found it coming in mid season to a new car) and, in only his second ever F1 entry and first race where the car didn't break down after 1 lap, finished in the points AHEAD of a 3xWDC.

In his prime I think only Alonso of today's drivers could really challenge him. But I still think Schumi would have prevailed.

#47 PlatenGlass

PlatenGlass
  • Member

  • 219 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 22 July 2014 - 23:29

PlatenGlass. Irvine was fast in Japan as he lived and raced there so knew Suzuka very well.

But he wasn't always particularly fast there relative to Schumacher. He seemed to find an extra gear in 1997, especially early in the race.

#48 Ferrari_F1_fan_2001

Ferrari_F1_fan_2001
  • Member

  • 3,212 posts
  • Joined: May 01

Posted 22 July 2014 - 23:55

I'll try it a different way. Put a modern wordclass fotball player in a WC in the 1990's and he would be the best by far. That does not mean he's greater.
Do I think current drivers are greater? No, they are just building on what Michael did, he was the pioner.
Michael was my first and only hero. It is a childhood thing and no one is ever going to take his place, so i'm not trying to argue against him here, but i feel that with time things move forward.



So you believe that someone like David Haye could beat Mike Tyson in his prime? Using your logic.

Sure athletes get better but talent remains.

#49 Spillage

Spillage
  • Member

  • 1,053 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 22 July 2014 - 23:59

A big advantage Schumacher would have over Alonso is his ability to gel well within a team. I heard Pat Symonds once allude to this in a lengthy podcast, I think it was for Motorsport magazine. MS was polite, got on well with everyone and worked very hard. Alonso worked very hard but had a tendency to be too single-minded, and that is why he has a history of falling out with various teams. So while they may be close on the track I can't help but feel Schumacher would have the edge in the team and therefore the edge in results. I do not believe that Raikkonen, Vettel or Hamilton could have matched Schumacher for pace in the late 1990s.



#50 Imateria

Imateria
  • Member

  • 478 posts
  • Joined: January 14

Posted 23 July 2014 - 00:17

It's impossible to say really. One thing Schumacher had throughout his entire first career was the team built up solely around him with cars tailored to his driving style, pretty much guaranteeing that no body else would have stood a chance against him in a way that you couldn't even do today (considerably more money involved from the WCC these days, it just wouldn't make financial sense for a team to hamstring their second car), and I seriously doubt the likes of Hamilton, Vettel and Alonso would remotely stand for that, they would look for another team.

 

In a hypothetical, neutral car, I'd imagine that it would be an epic battle well worth watching.