79 replies to this topic

[baddog]

turned out the upstart was right though eh?;)

sorry sorry sorry I couldnt resist. no slapping me

Shaun

[Piquet_1]

It may be the case that Brundle and Walker (attending the races in person still doesn't help him one iota) currently attend the races, but it was reported some years back during the Hunt days with the BBC that they were broadcasting from a studio. It is not a fabrication.

[RedFever]

Piquet_1

hysterical. You spend 10 minutes explaining how the press knows like or less than any of us, but then you sell as absolute truth the rumor that Schumi told the press Hill was a glorified #2. Not even capable of being consistent in one single post!!!!!

rw shepherd

I understand your point, and like you I don't care for fans that only see Schumacher and believe anything is owed to him. However, I find as disturbing all the Mika fans (read how many threads on the subject) that keep implying that 2000 title wasn't won by Schumi/Ferrari (8 wins, 8 poles, more dominant than this!!!) but lost by Ilmor (3 blow ups), by Mika (mid-season crisis, didn't crash into Schumi in japan at the start, by Mclaren (wrong strategy in Germany, in japan, etc). And even you suggest that only circumstances determined the 2000 title, but fail to understand that that is the case every year. Circumstances determinded Mika's titles no less than Schumi's: Schumi's broken leg in 99; Eddie asked to not pass Schumi in france 99; Schumi's clutch problem in Suzuka 98; DC's slowing in the middle of zero visibility in Spa 98. All circumstances that allowed Mika to win the title. It's life, sometimes **** happens to you, sometimes to your opponent.

But with 9 wins and 9 pole this year, ferrari fully, unquestionably, deservedly won the 2000 WDC. The rest is poor excuses for whom can't accept the defeat. In 1999, as a Ferrari fan I hoped until the last lap that Eddie could win the title that was missing for so long. But after the defeat, I accepted the result because obviously Mika was more deserving than Eddie, regardless of the team he worked for. Hopefully, McLaren and Mika fans alike will be able to accept that the most deserving team/driver in this season actually won the title.

[RedFever]

The entire section of my previous post addressed to you was questioning whether a) we should not trust journalists because they don't know what they say (in which case Schumi's rumor about Hill is ludicrous); or b) journalists know much better than you and me and are always reliable (in which case, the rumor is reliable). See....it just can't be both ways!!!

[Piquet_1]

What I read was a comment, not a question.

Regardless, this is hardly "rumour," and is pretty well known by those who were following F1 at the time. The comments, which were issued around the time of his return from the race ban, caused quite a fuss as Schumacher was considered a really nice young kid and the quotes took quite a few people by surprise, as it was not thought at that time to be in character for him. Not all Hill fans were swayed against Schumacher after Australia - many found him distasteful after his comments were made. It was reported in just about every journal at the time, and is recounted in Autocourse from that year. I'm quite surprised you're ignorant to them.

If enough sources report on an issue, then it most probably has some truth to it. Conversely, I don't usually subscribe to one journalist's *opinion* as being fact, which often is swallowed as such, which is to what the references earlier in this thread were pertaining.

I'll ask you to refrain from feigning sarcasm when attempting to discuss a topic.

[RedFever]

Actually, more than sarcasm, mine was a simple realization of a complete contradiction. Jornalists know nothing in one line, journalists say the truth ten lines later. To me it makes no sense, unless one consideres journalists a good source whenever they vomit garbage on a driver we don't like....

Incidentally, yes, I am entirely ignorant about the subject (I do however follow Formula 1 since 1974, I simply focus more on driving and teams than press rumors about what a driver says about another), since there was no mention at all in the Italian press back then, when I still lived in Rome. Hill being a British driver and Schumi the hated German sure creates the basis for the British press (which of course used press feeds, since I doubt there were 40 British journalists with Schumi when he supposedly said Hill was a #2 driver) to produce an unbiased and reliable piece of information....... Now, Italian press is as bad as the British, nevertheless Schumacher was a foreign driver and not at Ferrari, therefore there was no reason for them to ignore the news, if it was coming from a reliable source. I find it very suspect when this kind of news come directly from the country of one of the two drivers involved but are not reported elsewhere. After all, British papers wouldn't have any interest in inventing a story like this...why would they want to sell a few more thousand copies.......

Similarly, I guess, because the same source (British press) stated this year that Mika Hakkinen made a statement that "David is not in my (Mika's) league and not as fast" just after Monaco, we can safely assume that since this news was reported in at least 10-15 British sources, that Mika is indeed, just like Schumacher, an arrogant prick that makes distasteful comments on fellow drivers.....Hope this certainty makes you happy.

PS. Did you know the driver you must like so much to use his name, our dear good ol Nelson basically trashed anyone he wanted whenever he wanted? to the point he stated to the press that Ayrton was queer and people believed him, forcing poor Ayrton to walk around with his model girlfriend to prove otherwise. Distasteful????

[Piquet_1]

Yes, and Mansell's wife was (and still is) ugly, and Enzo Ferrari was a senile old man. I've heard it before.

Honestly, I think it's funny - it has no bearing on whether Senna or Mansell were good drivers to not, or whether Piquet respected them as such (speaking for myself, there's a lot of people I don't respect as people, but do professionally), or whether Ferrari was a successful team. And I won't pity Senna for having to parade around a hottie (which he did anyway) to prove his manliness, unless it did in fact make him uncomfortable. His lawsuit was dropped, BTW.

Schumacher's remarks weren't made to any one journalist - they were open and for all to hear, which most did, and they were made prior to internet fanaticism which jumps on every phrase uttered by the drivers. The reaction from Schumacher's statement was more bold since, as mentioned, he himself hadn't done much prior to making them. Hakkinen's comment (your paraphrase, and a quote which I haven't seen, even on sources which reported the statement - that's the state that journalism has become recently - don't denote in the slightest that he thinks Coulthard an unworthy rival, which is what Schumacher stated in not uncertain terms. Ever wonder when people started tagging him with the "arrogant" adjective? That's when.

Don't know what to tell you about your Italian press - all I can say is it that seems they must have concentrated too much on Berger's Hockenheim win and dropped the ball on that one. You might want to find some other sources of information. I'd start with Autocourse; by the time the season is over, they've pretty much sifted through all the BS and have very accurate information by publishing time.

[RedFever]

they were never a reliable source regarding Schumacher....they nashed him even when there was no reason

[rw shepherd]

RedFever,
I agree. For the umpteenth time, I only made my comments in the context of the ridiculous attitude of the media. Beyond that, I admit that Schumacher and Ferrari were full value for the championship. Please indicate that you understand my motivation so that I don't have to explain it yet again.

[RedFever]

I get it

[rw shepherd]

I know you boys have been waiting with baited breath to see my post-Sepang, well, post!!!!! Firstly, let me say, now that the season is over, congratulations to Michael Schumacher. He is a great driver and a most worthy World Driving Champion.

With respect to my contention that Hakkinen made it a lot closer than the Schumacher fans have given him credit for, I submit the following. Firstly, Schumacher had 9 poles while Hakkinen had only five. This would indicate that, at least over one flying lap, the Ferrari was the quickest car in the field. But, why would Hakkinen be worried about qualifying position when he demonstrated an ability to pass Schumacher at will on the starts even from the second row? Hakkinen always seemed to be looking past qualifying to the race itself. As far as fastest laps go, Hakkinen had 9, that is 9, I say 9, do you hear me, it's 9. Who had the second most? Well, that would be the alleged bum, Coulthard, with 3, and Schumacher's subordinate, Barrichello with 3 also. Schumacher was actually the slowest of this group. Slowest in spite of the fact that everyone is supposed to go "oo" and "ah" at his blinding speed, particularly on the light fuel load just before coming in for a pit stop (still couldn't capture more than 2 fastest laps).

As for starts, Hakkinen passed Schumacher 4 times off the start line, on one occasion from the second row. This includes Malaysia where Hakkinen had stopped his car before the lights went out but nevertheless was victimized by "Johnny Angstrom", aka Charlie Whiting, anyway. Mika didn't complain because it didn't really make any difference to the WDC. In the races in which Hakkinen had pole position, he was never passed off the line by Schumacher.

In the 5 races in which some rain fell, Schumacher won 3 while Hakkinen won only 1. Schumacher's car control is admirable in the rain, no doubt, and while I don't believe that Hakkinen is any slouch, Schumacher does have the advantage here. But let's face it, driving in the rain is important, but not as important as getting a good start. There were only 5 races where rain fell but 17 starts. Proficiency in starting is a more important skill, obviously.

As for crashes, Hakkinen had none while Schumacher had 2. Not his fault, the Schumi fans will protest, however, I submit that the onus is on the driver to avoid the situations that result in crashes and the boneheads who cause them. On this score, Hakkinen is superior.

With respect to menchanical problems, it seems to have escaped some of the esteemed experts on the BB panel, that mechanical problems can result in retirements or simply hinder normal progress in a race. I scoured the Atlas F1 reports from all the races and found that Schumacher had 2 retirements and no mention of mechanical problems in any other races. In contrast, Hakkinen had 3 retirements and 3 races where mechanical problems diminished his competitiveness even though he limped home. So, on to the points situation.

Schumacher finished the season with 108 points to 89 for Hakkinen. I'm giving Hakkinen the win in Australia since he was dominating the race until his breakdown. Four less points to Schumacher for a 2nd place finish and 10 more for Hakkinen. At Brazil, on a one stop strategy, Hakkinen would likely have won without breakdown, given the fact that Hakkinen was ahead of Coulthard, was fighting a problem, and Coulthard was only 24 seconds behind Schumacher before Schumacher began to slow down. Oops, another 14 point difference. Schumacher fans can have the result in San Marino even though Hakkinen had mid-race problems yet finished only 1.168 seconds back. The U.S. race, though held on a Mickey Mouse track, speaks for itself with Hakkinen closing big time and poised to leave Schumacher in his dust. Gee, another 14 point difference. At Malaysia, I take the liberty of giving Schumacher the win but reject Mr. Angstrom's analysis of the start which deprived Mika of at least 2nd place. Mika gets 6 points instead of 3 for a 3 point difference. Add it up, a 45 point difference leaving Hakkinen at 122 points and Schumacher at 96 points (this is only a 26 point advantage to Hakkinen so call me a liar for 4 points). Mika Hakkinen, 2000 World Driving Champion. I have given Mika the same sort of benefit of the doubt that Schumacher fans do when they proclaim that Schumacher never, ever, has the fastest car. They understate the quality of his car vis-a-vis everyone else so as to provide a ready made excuse when Michael ends up with a load of kaw-kaw in the tail end of his jammies (Spain 2000, 5th place, 48 seconds in arrears).

Anyway, my apologies to the good Schumacher fans like bex37 who are smart enough to see my tongue stuck in my cheek. To the rest who take Michael and themselves far too seriously, chew on this for a while and type up a storm with your postings in rebuttal. To quote Tommy Lee Jones as Detective Philip Gerard in The Fugitive, "I don't care!!!!!"

[The RedBaron]

rw shepherd.. In your analysis you fail to apply your crazy logic evenly. How about the 10 certain points MS lost at Monaco? How about another 4 lost points because of engine failure in France. What would have happened if MS wasn't punted from behind at those 2 races?? Can you really count on a certain win for Mika at Melbourne after only 19 or so laps even before his 1st pitstop?? Bear in mind he only had a 2-3 sec lead at the time.....not 40 secs after final pitstops.....big difference. Brazil -the same applies as the above and was even less clear cut. Your arguments are full of holes as other posters will point out in more detail.

The only thing you have proved from your initial analysis, Ferrari with it's "tuned-up" engine was faster in qualifying
whilst Mclarens were slightly faster in race trim.(Your fastest laps count, kind of backs it up too) Nothing new here....i already knew that!!

[rw shepherd]

I don't need my head examined, you do, just like all the posters to follow who don't understand what "tongue in cheek means". I have cast my fly on the water, now rise to the bait, ladies. But, then, you and your ilk are serious about MS and Ferrari, aren't you? You know, I still don't think the Ferrari is the best car, ah, duh!!!!!

[Hooster]

Originally posted by rw shepherd

As for crashes, Hakkinen had none while Schumacher had 2. Not his fault, the Schumi fans will protest, however, I submit that the onus is on the driver to avoid the situations that result in crashes and the boneheads who cause them. On this score, Hakkinen is superior.

Kudos to Hakkinen for getting through the season with no crashes. No kudos to you though rw. Please explain how Mika would have avoided Zonta if he had been in MS's place in Austria 2000.

After all is said and done Mika finished 14 races this year with an average of 6,4 points per race. MS finished 13 with an average of 8,3.

[mtl'78]

Baddog, good advice indeed, but I think Todd will be able to handle it.;)

As for Mika, he is a great rival, no doubt. One thing he lacks compared to Micheal's previous rivals is what we call over here: "du chien". Literally, it means some dog. What it really means is a "junkyard dog" mentality. Both Hill and Villeneuve had/have it. They may or may not have been better/faster, but they did have the single-mindedness to do the job. DC also has it, but he clearly lacks the skills to get the job done.

Mika lost something between the latter part of 1999 and the middle part of 2000. I don't buy the ill handling Maclaren theory one bit. Mika has shown a supreme skill level, and it's not an understeering car that will slow him down as much as he was. Mika is by far the most likeable WDC contender, and that's part of the problem.

If Mika had JV's mind he would have probably won the WDC. JV might rub many people the wrong way but he doesn't seem to have a care in the world besides racing. That's what it takes these days. Mika's last two WDC's are a testament to Maclaren of course, but the fact that MH did it "his way" is a testament to him. His approach to F1 is not maximising his chances, he relies 100% on his own skill on the track. As a two-time WDC I feel he should have (or at least show) more confidence. This feeling I have comes from most of his press conferences, and during the "dark" times, he often seemed lost, puzzling answers to simple questions etc. In his defence though, he did seem rejuvenated once he made his "comeback". That is also why I don't buy the understeering Mac theory. Hakkinen seemed much "happier" in a general way, not just because he liked his race car more...

Any takers?

[rw shepherd]

Hooster, why must you always come across as the typical ugly Schumacher fan? I didn't say that MS could do anything about Zonta, I merely pointed out that Hakkinen was not involved in any crashes and Schumacher was. If you don't think that staying out of trouble is a skill that some drivers have and others don't, then you are misinformed. That doesn't mean that each and every time a driver is in a shunt involving another car that it is his fault, witness that Schumacher-Zonta incident. To follow the logic of Schumacher fans, I should be making the claim that the McLaren is an inferior car to the Ferrari but I won't do this because I don't believe it. Rather, I think the McLaren and the Ferrari are about equally matched IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE FERRARI WAS CONSTRUCTORS CHAMPION AND CARRIED THE WDC TO VICTORY. Hey, MH supporters, are we getting the same treatment from the Schumacher fans? You are exactly right, BostonKiller, and isn't it great to see these buffoons continuing to claim that the Ferrari sucks just in case Schumacher isn't able to repeat next year? What a pathetic and transparent schtick!!!!! Really, though, I have just tried to dampen the enthusiasm, excessive, I think, for the Schumacher win, but give MS full credit. He won fair and square and didn't have to take anyone off to do it. I apologize for trying to analyze the season and the results to provide a different though fanciful perspective to the season. I know I am not supposed to do this. All postings should be about Ferrari or MS, and supportive too. Maybe the MS fans would like to discuss Schumacher's favourite colour, his favourite flavour of ice cream, or the colour of underwear he dons for each race. Or maybe he doesn't wear any, pretty exciting, eh, boys? Let's make Schumacher bigger than the sport itself or any other personality in the sport, no matter how successful he is. Then you will be happy. If I've got it all wrong, then unplug your heads and start to show some respect to the other competitors in F1 and the people with different perspectives on the relevant issues posted here. It will come as a big surprise, but the MS fans don't have any monopoly on intellect or opinion, witness the relentless stream of MS hooey posted here.

[Popeye]

Hey guys-

Thanks for the incredibly hilarious posts!!!!!!!!!! Full of wonderful biased opinions to offset the depressing fact that the Australian Grand Prix is 126 days away!

I read this topic for entertainment, and take none of it seriously. Neither should you take me seriously.

peace, love and understanding.

[rw shepherd]

By the way, I was just wondering if someone from the MS camp could explain the seeming paradox between the allegedly blinding speed of MS and his inability to put in a greater number of fastest laps than Barrichello or Coulthard or be anywhere near to Hakkinen. Furthermore, how do you win 9 races and have 9 poles and still not have the best car? And also, how do you explain away Schumacher's relative lack of skill in getting off the grid? Maybe one of the silent boys who know all could come off bottom and enlighten the rest of us.

[Todd]

Originally posted by rw shepherd
By the way, I was just wondering if someone from the MS camp could explain the seeming paradox between the allegedly blinding speed of MS and his inability to put in a greater number of fastest laps than Barrichello or Coulthard or be anywhere near to Hakkinen. Furthermore, how do you win 9 races and have 9 poles and still not have the best car? And also, how do you explain away Schumacher's relative lack of skill in getting off the grid? Maybe one of the silent boys who know all could come off bottom and enlighten the rest of us.

Michael Schumacher is tied with Alain Prost for the greatest number of fastest laps in F1 history. This, despite the fact that Michael has driven over 50 fewer Grands Prix. Clearly, Schumacher drove as fast as he had to this year. Schumacher' relative lack of skill getting off the grid is exactly like Rubens'. It is the result of a car with a far from perfect clutch system. Every Ferrari driver has been an erratic starter since Barnard designed this gearbox.

How did he win 9 from 9 without the best car? You really did show your true intelligence by talking about fastest laps as a Schumacher weakness, didn't you? The easy answer is the one that almost every F1 expert has been giving since 1994: He is the best driver. That means he is better at winning races than the others. The truth is that the McLarens and Ferraris were the most even cars in ages. They both had strengths, but I don't think you can say the Ferrari was better. In 1995, Schumacher won 9 races with a car that was clearly inferior.

The reason he couldn't duplicate that fete in '98 was that he was racing against Mika Hakkinen instead of the deeply flawed Damon Hill. That was the whole point of this thread: Michael recognizes Mika's talent. You are really a sorry excuse for a human being because you couldn't understand that. If you want to regurgitate the hurt little boy point of view that Schumaher is a mean man, than start a new thread or post it to one of the other countless threads that exist for that purpose. That is why I tore into you before. That is why I ignored the little 'lets be pals' love note you sent to me as a PrivateMessage. And that is why I finally had to come back to this stupid tangent you've doggedly persued. Learn a little about F1. You'll fool a couple people into not thinking you're a moron.

Side note to anyone offended by this post: Read the post from rws that proceeded the one I quoted. Do you not understand how offensive "typical such and such Schumacher fan" dismissive tripe from this half wit is? Well consider it.

[The RedBaron]

Fastest laps?? what's the big deal about this...who exactly holds the record for most fastest laps in F1 anyway? Go to forix and you'll find the drivers that are chasing down the GP leader, tend to be the ones who set fastest laps during the race. Mika set 9 fastest laps in 2000, yet he only won 2 of those races....am I right or am I right? If you don't believe me then look at 1999 championship when the Mclaren was the dominant car especially during the first half of the season.
Mika wins championship, yet Michael has 5 fastest race laps from 10 races compared to Mika's 6 from 16. If this stat is so important, than MS has better strike rate in 1999.

Below are Mika's stats for 1999 fastest laps.

Year G. Prix Grid Race Result
1999 Brazil 1 1
1999 Monaco 1 3
1999 G.Britain 1 Wheel
1999 Austria 1 3
1999 Belgium 1 2
1999 Europe 3 5

So you can see from the above Mika only wins once when he sets the fastest lap in a race, the rest of the time he's playing catch-up. Like I said in 2000 it's only 2 wins from the 9 occasions that he sets fastest laps.

Ok, in 2000 Ferrari definitely had the fastest car in Qualifying because of it's Q-engine. Race trim a different
story. Sometimes Macs were better sometimes Ferraris were. Marginally though, probably Maclarens- slightly more HP, faster straightline speed,
very balanced car aerodynamically thus easier on the tyres,
ability to break later into the slow corners. Ferrari seem to be better exiting corners getting the power down earlier, better race & pitstop strategies. So pretty even overall, but performance from car alone, then Macs marginally superior IMO.

"Marginally" superior is quite different from "so" superior.

[rw shepherd]

RedBaron, you make a good argument and a good analysis of the numbers. MS has a longer history as a race winner, is one of the greatest drivers of all time and so has more faster laps than Hakkinen. I don't see Hakkinen ever being able to match the numbers that Schumacher has accumulated. Schumacher fans may in fact be right that MH has never been the match of MS but I was only looking at this season and trying to point out that the performance might not have been quite as dominating as it seemed. I have stated repeatedly that Schumacher is a worthy champion and that he won the title fair and square. Am I being reasonable enough? This discussion is now over for me.

As for being a buffoon, it's Mr. Buffoon to you guys, and maybe I am. But then maybe it takes one to know one. That might be why Toddy gets his dander up, you know, he must think that he has a monopoly on being a buffoon!!!!! I pointed out on another post about DC, that the Hooster had started the thread, stoked the fire with a couple of postings and then sat back and watched what was supposed to be a DC love-in turn into a DC bashfest. People rose blindly to the bait. It was really quite clever. Well, I have to tell you that for a while Todd was hardly participating in any thread I posted on. He was punishing me. I had 2 or 3 bad weeks there. But you just couldn't resist, could you, Todd, and predictbly you rose to the bait. Yes, you are right, I think you are the smartest guy on the BB. The rest of us are dummies. But seriously though, one thing I will admit is that Todd knows his stuff and if you want to debate with him, you better know yours too. The problem with Todd is that he can't relate his genius without his insecure little comments challenging the intellect of those who disagree with him. There is never any room for discussion, it is always "statement of fact by Todd" with accompanying attempts at bullying in rebuttal. MS fans, don't think you are immune from this, everyone is a target. The accusation that I am a sorry excuse for a human being is just too funny. I could be the world's greatest philanthropist but a sorry excuse for a human being because I don't agree with Todd. Todd actually thinks this BB is important!!!!! Isn't that a joke? In the grand scheme of things, sorry, Todd's grand scheme, this is actually important. Even Schumacher would be rolling on the floor laughing at that one. I'll ask him next time I see him and get back to you. Since working in the mail room 8 hours a day and embellishing your importance a la Al Gore and being on the BB the other 16 hours a day doesn't leave much time for anything else, I can see why a reasonable attempt to inject some civility to the discussions here would be interpreted as a love note. It wasn't. But I ask all members, is this the kind of crap you want to read on the BB, the stuff I'm writing here and the bunk Todd spews out? This isn't supposed to be The Comedy Channel.

RedBaron, my parting comment is that you should leave BostonKiller alone. While it isn't a name I would have picked, you should look at some of the other postings on the BB before you question BostonKiller's intellect. Talk to you next season!

[Hooster]

Originally posted by rw shepherd
By the way, I was just wondering if someone from the MS camp could explain the seeming paradox between the allegedly blinding speed of MS and his inability to put in a greater number of fastest laps than Barrichello or Coulthard or be anywhere near to Hakkinen. Furthermore, how do you win 9 races and have 9 poles and still not have the best car? And also, how do you explain away Schumacher's relative lack of skill in getting off the grid? Maybe one of the silent boys who know all could come off bottom and enlighten the rest of us.

I don`t have enough inside knowledge to accurately explain these things but I will tell you what I think the resons are.

Few fastest laps 1: Race strategy. Someone once said, Senna I believe it was, that F1 was all about winning at the slowest possible speed. MS plainly has this skill.

Few fastest laps 2: The Mac is slightly faster than the Ferrari in race trim.

Win 9 races and haveing 9 poles without the best car: I believe the Ferrari in qualifying trim was the best car so that explains the 9 poles to me. Winning 9 races with a slightly and I say slightly inferior car in race trim comes down to this;

MS is slightly better than any other driver in F1.

The Ferrari team did better work on strategy than any other team.

I have no idea why Schumie is so slow off the grid. I think I would have to be an insider at Ferrari to know that.

There is also one thing you mentioned rw that I would like to come clean about. You wrote "Hooster had started the thread, stoked the fire with a couple of postings and then sat back and watched what was supposed to be a DC love-in turn into a DC bashfest". To tell the truth my intention by starting that thread was to gain some insight into what made DC fans tick. I basicly wanted people to come and say why they liked DC. I don`t like DC but I found it regretable that the thread turned into a DC bashfest. If you look at the thread you will see I did what I could to prevent this from happening but sadly it did.

Peace.[p][Edited by Hooster on 10-29-2000]

[Hooster]

Originally posted by rw shepherd
Hooster, why must you always come across as the typical ugly Schumacher fan?

If my belief that an accident a driver could do nothing to avoid has nothing to do with skill makes me an ugly Schumacher fan mea culpa. I am.

If you read my post you will notice I said MH should be commended for avoiding accidents this year. I just didn`t feel it was right to assign fault to MS for the Austria incident. I feel this is a balanced and unbaised point of view but I apologize if you disagree and this somehow makes me ugly.

[Boston Killer]

What is buffon?
Should I be insulted?
I remind you once again that English is my 3rd language.

Well,well,well Red Baron I see you're taking Todd's line...
Who is who's sidekick after all?
Pathetic...
As for my nick than it's none of your business.I could use some insults towards you,but it is no use.
As baddog said it's a quick way to get banned,which isn't in my plans.

Todd,
Main reason for Ferrari's erratic starts is Michael's unability to make it right,rather than Barnard's design flaws.
If Michael is struggling with something it's not neceserrily
a car!Despite you consider him God,he is a human being and he may struggle with something,like fast starts for instance.Live with that,Todd.
To give you an example remember Alesi's blinding starts in 1995.From 6th to 2nd in a matter of seconds at Silvestone.

[Todd]

Jean Alesi's good start in 1995 is not as relevent as you think. First of all, the gearbox used in '95 kept failing in '96 due to the vibrations of the new V10, so it was replaced by a new transmission during the season. That was when the starting problems became more consistent. Second of all, Schumacher's starts are erratic, meaning inconsistent. Alesi having a good start doesn't prove that he had all good starts. Schumacher has had a few good starts since he came to Ferrari too. Take Monaco '99 as an example. Look at Barrichello's starts this year compared to '99. Have they been as good? Hint: Look at all of them, not just the best this year and the worst of last year.

[The RedBaron]

Michael's nemesis are race starts for sure, we saw that time and again over the last few years. There have been occasions when he's had a good one, but they are few and far between. Maybe that's the reason for not placing so much emphasis on Poles but more on race set-up.

I do recall his starts at Benetton being much better..consistently, so Todd has a point about the Ferraris. Rubens struggled this year as did Irvine last year.. the latter having a rep as a good starter.

[Force Ten]

BostonKiller, a Ferrari F1 car ain't exactly a bimmer. The clutch of a race car is pretty much just an on/off switch, not many possibilities of sliding and catching up there.

So a goodness or badness of car's starting mechanism has also a very definite role in drivers' starts.

But then again, bad starts haven't always been Schumacher's problem. I remember him being a very capable starter at both 1994 and 1997 seasons.

[Boston Killer]

ForceTen,
Guess what?
We're neighbours!I live in Riga.
So far the closest AtlasF1 user was Flicker in Moscow.
Good to see you!

[Force Ten]

Originally posted by Boston Killer
ForceTen,
Guess what?
We're neighbours!I live in Riga.

Good to see familiar faces!

So far the closest AtlasF1 user was Flicker in Moscow.

Naah, you're wrong... We have a whole buncha Finns in this newsgroup, also some Swede's, if I remember correctly

Good to see you!

ditto! BTW, Riga rocks, I spent some time over there at spring.

[Boston Killer]

Flicker,
I meant the closest to me:)
I know that there are quiet a few Finns and Swedes here.They are just out of my reach!!!Arrrghh

BTW, Tallinn rock too!Big time.Our company's headquarters are located in Tallinn,so I went to Tallinn a couple of weeks back.Was hugely impressed!
Saku Original is fantastic!
And that F-1 theme bar?Wow!Wow!Wow!.

Beer in Riga in quiet good too.Wanna refresh your memory,Force Ten?Will be glad to see you.