199 replies to this topic

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Compare this driving style:

Melbourne 2004



Melbourne 2010

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

I know it's not an entirely fair comparison as the 2004 Ferrari was so utterly dominant but you can see see a fundamental shift in driving styles. He's completely changed his driving style for 2010; the car looks very understeery and he slows down much earlier and then tries to 'charge' through the corner in the hope of stealing lap time wheras in the past he used to throw the car into the corner and balance it with the throttle through the middle.

Compare this style to that of 2004 and you'll see what I mean. It's not natural at all for him and looks very impure. Over the season this style has worked against him.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Completely different rules package. Completely. No refueling. Slick tires. No tire war. Etc. Et al. Even if no rules had changed since 2004, it'd still be a 6 year old design. The only people will driving like it's 2004 wouldn't be competitive.

Hell maybe that's his problem.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Completely different rules package. Completely. No refueling. Slick tires. No tire war. Etc. Et al. Even if no rules had changed since 2004, it'd still be a 6 year old design. The only people will driving like it's 2004 wouldn't be competitive.

Hell maybe that's his problem.

I have already conceeded the issue of different cars, rules etc in the first point. The issue highlighted is that his driving style has had to be changed considerably to drive this generation of cars. If you're not at one or at ease with the car, then performance will suffer. Surely even you can see that?

[as65p]

I have already conceeded the issue of different cars, rules etc in the first point. The issue highlighted is that his driving style has had to be changed considerably to drive this generation of cars. If you're not at one or at ease with the car, then performance will suffer. Surely even you can see that?

It's the same for every other driver who raced through all the rule and tyre changes. The only difference is MS' 3 year break and his age. Why is that so hard to see?

[Wlleiotl]

this would work if you compared other drivers from that year and this year as well

[ivand911]

And if this drivers who drove before 2006 and in 2010, have 3 years leave. Then this could work. They removed second video.

Edited by ivand911, 15 July 2010 - 11:38.

[aditya-now]

I know it's not an entirely fair comparison as the 2004 Ferrari was so utterly dominant but you can see see a fundamental shift in driving styles. He's completely changed his driving style for 2010; the car looks very understeery and he slows down much earlier and then tries to 'charge' through the corner in the hope of stealing lap time wheras in the past he used to throw the car into the corner and balance it with the throttle through the middle.

Compare this style to that of 2004 and you'll see what I mean. It's not natural at all for him and looks very impure. Over the season this style has worked against him.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, in most kart races Michael participates in he always wins - throwing the kart into and around the corner is typical kart style.
Michael is champion supreme in that style, the 2004 Ferrari, the tyres (glued to the asphalt thanks to tyre war, bigger surface - even though they were no slicks, they stuck much better to the road), as well as refuelling (allowing for shorter stints with a lighter car throughout the race) obviously allowed him to do so.

The 2010 regs/tyres/Mercedes don´t allow him to do so - so he cannot enjoy his natural driving style. And obviously he is not able to adapt his driving style like other drivers have adapted - you can´t teach an old dog new tricks, it seems. It is not simply a question of an understeery car - although Nico also hates an understeery car he can cope much better with it than Michael.

In my reckoning it is the new regs that have hurt Schumacher the most - we discussed this issue in the Schumacher thread in April (to the heavy opposition of the die-hard Schumacher fans) - his cornering technique as well as the fact, that from 2010 onwards it is not sprint races anymore, in which he excelled (see some of the Schumi/Brawn masterstrokes with up to three times pitting in a race to make for extreme short sprint-stints), but back to the classic F1 format of going on one fuel load as it used to be in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

The fact that the rules from 1994 - 2009 were ideal for Michael´s driving style and cornering technique (the heavier the car, the harder it is to throw it around like a kart - so refuelling was ideal for Michael) begs the question if he would have succeeded in securing his records under other (normal F1) regs, like in place for most of the history of the sport - it could be that Michael was a supreme opportunist of the given rules set, or better, that Michael´s driving style suited the rules in those years like no other drivers´ skills, a perfect coincidence, one could say - of course not that anyone would like to hear that.

this would work if you compared other drivers from that year and this year as well

Not necessarily, as the problems of MS are markedly stronger than those of any other driver who drove in 2004 and 2010 as well, with the possible exception of Trulli, who seems to be shaded by Kovalainen.

Edited by aditya-now, 15 July 2010 - 12:15.

[as65p]

And if this drivers who drove before 2006 and in 2010, have 3 years leave. Then this could work. They removed second video.

Or introduce "Senior F1", as someone already suggested. This could work even better, and I honestly think MS would dominate easily.

[seahawk]

Or simply: MS never liked understeering cars, the Mercedes understeers a lot. Rosberg is also not too happy with the car either. Button seesm to like understeer more than oversteer and he was the driver for which the car was made.

If MS stays in F1, I would suggest to wait for next year. The engineers now know for which drivers they have to design the car.

[RSNS]

1.

Comparing films of the same corners, it is very clear that Schumacher's style is, as Aditya says, based on spinning the car on slower corners, and, on faster ones, chucking the car into the corner and then drive it on the throttle and small steering adjustments.

This was the traditional method of very fast drivers in the past (more or less up to the 70ies). After that only Gilles Villeneuve used that technique. Lauda and Prost liked understeering cars, Hakkinnen is said to like oversteering cars but that doesn't show in his technique.

Schumacher brought it back, with a great deal of astonishment from, for instance, Alain Prost.

For some reason, he cannot do that in the Mercedes. When he tries it, the car oversteers too much, he has to lift and correct and go off line.

2.

Another feature of Schumacher-Bennetton/Ferrari was the constant acceleration: he kept the revs very high and exited the corners subtly spinning.

That also doesn't work on the Merc: the result is too much spinning, the car oversteers and loses time, this chiefly in mid to slow corners.

Rosberg is much smoother, and although he doesn't like understeering, he copes better with the acceleration part of the corner exit, perhaps because he does not try to exit in a pronounced powerslide, and Schumacher used to do.

Schumacher's style burns tyres, and, on the Merc, is not very effective.

But I'm sure he knows much better than me. It would be interesting to know the opinion of an unbiased F1 driver.

I wish we could witness the Schumacher of old again. It was really sensational.

[jimm]

1.

Comparing films of the same corners, it is very clear that Schumacher's style is, as Aditya says, based on spinning the car on slower corners, and, on faster ones, chucking the car into the corner and then drive it on the throttle and small steering adjustments.

This was the traditional method of very fast drivers in the past (more or less up to the 70ies). After that only Gilles Villeneuve used that technique. Lauda and Prost liked understeering cars, Hakkinnen is said to like oversteering cars but that doesn't show in his technique.

Schumacher brought it back, with a great deal of astonishment from, for instance, Alain Prost.

For some reason, he cannot do that in the Mercedes. When he tries it, the car oversteers too much, he has to lift and correct and go off line.

2.

Another feature of Schumacher-Bennetton/Ferrari was the constant acceleration: he kept the revs very high and exited the corners subtly spinning.

That also doesn't work on the Merc: the result is too much spinning, the car oversteers and loses time, this chiefly in mid to slow corners.

Rosberg is much smoother, and although he doesn't like understeering, he copes better with the acceleration part of the corner exit, perhaps because he does not try to exit in a pronounced powerslide, and Schumacher used to do.

Schumacher's style burns tyres, and, on the Merc, is not very effective.

But I'm sure he knows much better than me. It would be interesting to know the opinion of an unbiased F1 driver.

I wish we could witness the Schumacher of old again. It was really sensational.

I have to disagree with you a little. MS, Ralf and DC all have similar styles of early turn in with a ton of trail braking. It is why he does not want understeer....this induces understeer, so a little tendency to go loose helps MS. Understeer is almost terminal. IT is also why he is hard on front tires and why his career took an upward turn when fuel stops were introduced in 1994 meaning the tires were changed more often. Before then, he was usually one of the first to stop for tires. So, not a big surprise he is having some issues with tires now that they have to be looked after again. Has to be said that both Prost and Senna were great at watching after the tires while going fast.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

As has been mentioned elsewhere, in most kart races Michael participates in he always wins - throwing the kart into and around the corner is typical kart style.
Michael is champion supreme in that style, the 2004 Ferrari, the tyres (glued to the asphalt thanks to tyre war, bigger surface - even though they were no slicks, they stuck much better to the road), as well as refuelling (allowing for shorter stints with a lighter car throughout the race) obviously allowed him to do so.

The 2010 regs/tyres/Mercedes don´t allow him to do so - so he cannot enjoy his natural driving style. And obviously he is not able to adapt his driving style like other drivers have adapted - you can´t teach an old dog new tricks, it seems. It is not simply a question of an understeery car - although Nico also hates an understeery car he can cope much better with it than Michael.

In my reckoning it is the new regs that have hurt Schumacher the most - we discussed this issue in the Schumacher thread in April (to the heavy opposition of the die-hard Schumacher fans) - his cornering technique as well as the fact, that from 2010 onwards it is not sprint races anymore, in which he excelled (see some of the Schumi/Brawn masterstrokes with up to three times pitting in a race to make for extreme short sprint-stints), but back to the classic F1 format of going on one fuel load as it used to be in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

The fact that the rules from 1994 - 2009 were ideal for Michael´s driving style and cornering technique (the heavier the car, the harder it is to throw it around like a kart - so refuelling was ideal for Michael) begs the question if he would have succeeded in securing his records under other (normal F1) regs, like in place for most of the history of the sport - it could be that Michael was a supreme opportunist of the given rules set, or better, that Michael´s driving style suited the rules in those years like no other drivers´ skills, a perfect coincidence, one could say - of course not that anyone would like to hear that.






Not necessarily, as the problems of MS are markedly stronger than those of any other driver who drove in 2004 and 2010 as well, with the possible exception of Trulli, who seems to be shaded by Kovalainen.

Good, fair and well balanced post.

[ashnathan]

Slick tyres, different fundamental cars and heres the big one, NO TRACTION CONTROL

[Lights]

His style might have changed but due to the rule changes it's not gonna work by watching two video's. What ashnathan says, traction control matters a lot for making the car stable. The F2004 was the class of the field and in those years Ferrari could really work on making the car easy to drive, as it had such a performance advantage, while Mercedes this year has to try everything to get the maximum performance out of it.

Put Schumacher in a Red Bull and you wouldn't see the difference in driving style.

[RSNS]

I have to disagree with you a little. MS, Ralf and DC all have similar styles of early turn in with a ton of trail braking. It is why he does not want understeer....this induces understeer, so a little tendency to go loose helps MS. Understeer is almost terminal. IT is also why he is hard on front tires and why his career took an upward turn when fuel stops were introduced in 1994 meaning the tires were changed more often. Before then, he was usually one of the first to stop for tires. So, not a big surprise he is having some issues with tires now that they have to be looked after again. Has to be said that both Prost and Senna were great at watching after the tires while going fast.

I see your point: so, if I understand you correctly you say that Schumacher (and Ralph and Coulthard) break deeply into the corner, which induces understeer and corrodes front tires. This is interesting because Alonso, while at Renault, dealt with understeering in quite a different way.

[Mauseri]

To me it looks like in this 2010 video Schumacher brakes on a straight line before turning in, where as in the 2004 he steered in earlier while still braking. Maybe the reason why he doesn't do this now is because there is less downforce and grip. Maybe also the weaker V8 engine and lack of traction control mean it's more important to focus on a neat exit at the cost of aggressive entry?

Edited by Bianchimont, 16 July 2010 - 07:47.

[Dan333SP]

The fact that the rules from 1994 - 2009 were ideal for Michael´s driving style and cornering technique (the heavier the car, the harder it is to throw it around like a kart - so refuelling was ideal for Michael) begs the question if he would have succeeded in securing his records under other (normal F1) regs, like in place for most of the history of the sport - it could be that Michael was a supreme opportunist of the given rules set, or better, that Michael´s driving style suited the rules in those years like no other drivers´ skills, a perfect coincidence, one could say - of course not that anyone would like to hear that.

Your post was excellent until you got to this bit... It doesn't beg that question because if one were to ask that, one could ask the same thing about every driver who ever won a title. In some way, it is true, but it is equally true for all of them from Farina to Button. It's not like there was one peculiar set of rules that Schumacher exploited, he won races over a 15 season span with numerous regulation changes going from fully computer controlled wide and low cars with massive slicks to narrow, twitchy aero dependent cars running with ultra powerful V10s and skittish grooved tires, and still won. Just what do you mean by "normal" F1 regs? No refueling? Not sure how something that has been a part of the sport for around 20 seasons, a third of the sport's history, can be considered "abnormal". With your logic, do drivers who excelled at getting the most of low durability tires rather than nursing them and won titles during the tire changing era have the doubt hanging over their heads that they couldn't have done it during the 60s when one tank of gas and one set of tires lasted the whole race? That'd apply to a whole slew of modern champions, and maybe they couldn't have won in that era, but it doesn't matter because they took the cards they were dealt in whichever particular season and exploited whatever natural and mechanical advantages they had over the rest of the field to win the title.

Will Schumacher adapt to the new style of driving? Honestly, I was dead certain that he would at the beginning of the season, and Bahrain only confirmed my expectations for me. Since then, I've been massively disappointed, particularly in Canada where I expected him to return to his old form as he'd never been bested by a teammate at that track despite all the regulation changes he'd dealt with in the past. I'm sure he'll return next season and give it another go, but I now have strong doubts that it'll be any better than this season. Yes, if the cars were the same to drive as the '00-'06 machines he was used to, he'd probably be as quick or quicker than Nico and getting the podiums for Mercedes. However, it seems that age and adaptability have a stronger correlation than I suspected at first, and in your words, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. I'll gladly be proven wrong this year or next, but I doubt it.

[Massacrator]

I think MS lacks self-confidence, that's all. He knows what he achieved, he knows his age, and he knows what he can/can't achieve since now. We know how important is the phsicology in sports.

This is the main reason for everything. He would have already adapted if he had the passion he had back in his glory days. Now he just wants that glory back, or maybe he just want to run in a car arround, but that's not enough to get back to his momentum.

Edited by Massacrator, 16 July 2010 - 02:15.

[Oho]

Hakkinnen is said to like oversteering cars but that doesn't show in his technique.

I thought it did in his rather late turn ins at least when compared to Michael Schumacher. I thought he liked a pointy car he could throw into corner after breaking almost solely on straight line leading to the corner. This could also explain his tentativeness on damp track, he could not drive his preferred way if he could not rely on grip level. Michael Schumacher on the other had could be more exploring with easier turn in.

Edited by Oho, 16 July 2010 - 06:22.

[Mika Mika]

All thse videos tell me is that TC sounds awful and banning it was the best move ever!!!

[cheapracer]

wow another Schumacher thread.

[cheapracer]

I see your point: so, if I understand you correctly you say that Schumacher (and Ralph and Coulthard) break deeply into the corner, which induces understeer and corrodes front tires. This is interesting because Alonso, while at Renault, dealt with understeering in quite a different way.

MS was a corner roller, he braked early, turned in early and slowly right on the traction circle, it doesn't work now because the front doesn't offer the grip. This is why it works more today for say Hammo who turns in agressively weighting up the fronts more.


http://www.tudou.com...ew/VVarGvrVnxw/

Love Herbet saying MS was nothing special, lol! You loser.

Edited by cheapracer, 16 July 2010 - 06:42.

[P123]

It's the same for every other driver who raced through all the rule and tyre changes. The only difference is MS' 3 year break and his age. Why is that so hard to see?

Agreed. Alonso had to change his driving style massivley when he went from understeery Michelin to oversteery Bridgestone. Then they have all had to change going from grooves to slicks. Schumacher is simply not what he used to be. He used to be considered as being able to drive around any car deficiency. That is now gone. On a good day he can match and beat Rosberg, but that's not often enough.

Edited by P123, 16 July 2010 - 07:36.

[Fortymark]

MS was a corner roller, he braked early, turned in early and slowly right on the traction circle, it doesn't work now because the front doesn't offer the grip. This is why it works more today for say Hammo who turns in agressively weighting up the fronts more.


http://www.tudou.com...ew/VVarGvrVnxw/

Love Herbet saying MS was nothing special, lol! You loser.

Oh no, not that stupid video again with telemetri from Silverstone..
It´s incredible ridiculous as Schumacher wasn´t great at that circuit and was often beaten
by his teammate there (despite having #1 status)

[MikeTekRacing]

It´s incredible ridiculous as Schumacher wasn´t great at that circuit and was often beaten
by his teammate there (despite having #1 status)

often?
finished ahead of his team mate in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001,2002,2004,2005,2006

1994 DQ
1995 accident
1996 hydraulics
1997 wheel

lost to his team mate in 1992,2003,2010
so he "won" 8 times, had 4 times terminal failures and lost 3 times
yet he was often beaten?

[pUs]

often?
finished ahead of his team mate in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001,2002,2004,2005,2006

1994 DQ
1995 accident
1996 hydraulics
1997 wheel

lost to his team mate in 1992,2003,2010
so he "won" 8 times, had 4 times terminal failures and lost 3 times
yet he was often beaten?

Fortymark discussing Michael Schumacher.. a classic concept.

[DanardiF1]

Slick tyres, different fundamental cars and heres the big one, NO TRACTION CONTROL

That's the main point to me too.... if you listen to the first video you can hear the TC cutting in so many times, and then with the 2010 one you can see that Michael doesn't have that comfort zone, the computers helping him out (the irony there being that he helped develop that TC so it would help him) and now it's all down to him again...

It all adds to his lack of understanding of the tyres... the front is understeery, and he might be too hard on the rears and getting no help in the fight against wheelspin... time slipping away in each revolution of the tyre...

In the same way that Button has become a better driver now there's no TC, Schumacher who relied on the TC allowing him to retain huge cornering speeds has become worse for it...

Edited by DanardiF1, 16 July 2010 - 19:50.

[arknor]

That's the main point to me too.... if you listen to the first video you can hear the TC cutting in so many times, and then with the 2010 one you can see that Michael doesn't have that comfort zone, the computers helping him out (the irony there being that he helped develop that TC so it would help him) and now it's all down to him again...

It all adds to his lack of understanding of the tyres... the front is understeery, and he might be too hard on the rears and getting no help in the fight against wheelspin... time slipping away in each revolution of the tyre...

In the same way that Button has become a better driver now there's no TC, Schumacher who relied on the TC allowing him to retain huge cornering speeds has become worse for it...

he drove perfectly fine without TC and on the edge though look at some of the early videos of them hes happily power sliding on the same corner every lap in one wet race i think in 95

[peroa]

Did he really? So option 13 was there just for fun?

[Simon Says]

Compare this driving style:

Melbourne 2004



Melbourne 2010

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

I know it's not an entirely fair comparison as the 2004 Ferrari was so utterly dominant but you can see see a fundamental shift in driving styles. He's completely changed his driving style for 2010; the car looks very understeery and he slows down much earlier and then tries to 'charge' through the corner in the hope of stealing lap time wheras in the past he used to throw the car into the corner and balance it with the throttle through the middle.

Compare this style to that of 2004 and you'll see what I mean. It's not natural at all for him and looks very impure. Over the season this style has worked against him.

Top F1 drivers can easily adept to different cars.

For example. Lewis in his rookie season almost won the WDC in a understeerign car, and in his 2nd year he became WDC in a oversteering car. So it doesn't really have an impact on top drivers.

The main difference between now and then is

Ferrari 2004 = computer driven cars, Bridgestone specifically designed for Ferrari, unlimited testing + biggest budget in F1, Rory Byrne
Mercedes 2010 = same tyres for everybody, ban on testing, no Rory Byrne, less computers.

MS simply enjoyed a massive car advantage over everybody while being #1 driver in the team, and Ferrari was simply the best team around with their Bridgestone tyres and car.

edit; So MS will never dominate F1 like he did.

Edited by Simon Says, 16 July 2010 - 20:10.

[Dragonfly]

First of all the thread base is wrong. Comparisons should be made between 2006 and 2010, because the engine is a V8. 2004 car is quite a different beast, much more different than current ones.
Also, IIRC, Michael did some tests for Ferrari without TC when the SECU was introduced for 2008. And had very good times.

Did he really? So option 13 was there just for fun?

Wasn't this option 13 said to be an illegal launch control? Or it is whatever suits you?

Edited by Dragonfly, 16 July 2010 - 21:21.

[Mauseri]

He's completely changed his driving style for 2010; the car looks very understeery and he slows down much earlier and then tries to 'charge' through the corner in the hope of stealing lap time wheras in the past he used to throw the car into the corner and balance it with the throttle through the middle.

Actually... I have always thought that Schumacher setups his cars understeery. The way he muscled trough the corners in old times, the handling of the car looks stable and understeery. In the corner entry, maybe he induced some oversteer with brakes or tyre loadings, but that doesnt mean the setup is oversteery. So he was able to drive fast into the corners, and also fast out of the corners by powersteering, another thing which may misslead some people think his car is setup oversteery. To me it looks like fundamentally understeery, but he just drove it in an aggressive way. Just look how small front wings he used in the old days in comparison to his competitors.

Now why he cannot do the same this year, I've no idea. Maybe he has lost some of his car control, or the car doesn't let him drive similarly.

Edited by Bianchimont, 16 July 2010 - 22:30.

[Fabs]

often?
finished ahead of his team mate in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001,2002,2004,2005,2006

1994 DQ
1995 accident
1996 hydraulics
1997 wheel

lost to his team mate in 1992,2003,2010
so he "won" 8 times, had 4 times terminal failures and lost 3 times
yet he was often beaten?

So when Schumacher has a DNF, you dont consider him "beaten"

But in Silverstone 2000, Schumacher finished ahead of Barrichello, who had a DNF because of hydraulics

Yet, you considet it a "win"

[CSquared]

Actually... I have always thought that Schumacher setups his cars understeery. The way he muscled trough the corners in old times, the handling of the car looks stable and understeery. In the corner entry, maybe he induced some oversteer with brakes or tyre loadings, but that doesnt mean the setup is oversteery. So he was able to drive fast into the corners, and also fast out of the corners by powersteering, another thing which may misslead some people think his car is setup oversteery. To me it looks like fundamentally understeery, but he just drove it in an aggressive way. Just look how small front wings he used in the old days in comparison to his competitors.

Now why he cannot do the same this year, I've no idea. Maybe he has lost some of his car control, or the car doesn't let him drive similarly.

Gerhard Berger, among other insiders, said Schumacher set his cars up extremely oversteery.

[RSNS]

Gerhard Berger, among other insiders, said Schumacher set his cars up extremely oversteery.

Barrichello said more or less the same: that he liked the car to be precise on the rear end and that Schumacher preferred a more precise front end.

[Mauseri]

Barrichello said more or less the same: that he liked the car to be precise on the rear end and that Schumacher preferred a more precise front end.

Isn't a precise front a stiff front? Which means the car is understeery? Of course there are many setup parameteres which change the balance between oversteery and understeery differently, specially with the application of steering input and the dynamics acting on the car. It's a confusing topic even for people who claim they know http://forums.autosp....php/t1818.html

When I used to play with simulators, I used to make setups that I could rely on understeering for most of the time for the ease of control and efficient acceleration and braking, but still the car should react well on direction changes and provide some oversteer in long corners to carry on the speed.

[black magic]

staggering in 2010 so many have so little incite into what TC actually meant.

all TC did was increase the speed of cornerinng needed to remain commpetitive and also reduced the margin between enough grip and no grip

(dont tell jackie stewart but that is why there were a lot of spins in testing - guys having to find by trial and error where the cornering limitwas.

like any driver michael won with and without TC

Lauda has added the most sensible comment. in a nutshell michael has lost some instinctive speed and now has to use all of his mental faculties to be competitive. when he senses that despite getting a car to his liking he is not as quick as his teammate he will be gone.

[pingu666]

the tc could act like antilock brakes for the rear aswell, so the brake balance isnt such a big issue
the higher weight of the cars now might mean squaring off the corner is better

[CSquared]

Isn't a precise front a stiff front? Which means the car is understeery? Of course there are many setup parameteres which change the balance between oversteery and understeery differently, specially with the application of steering input and the dynamics acting on the car. It's a confusing topic even for people who claim they know http://forums.autosp....php/t1818.html

When I used to play with simulators, I used to make setups that I could rely on understeering for most of the time for the ease of control and efficient acceleration and braking, but still the car should react well on direction changes and provide some oversteer in long corners to carry on the speed.

You don't believe Gerhard Berger and Rubens Barrichello?

[cheapracer]

Oh no, not that stupid video again with telemetri from Silverstone..
It´s incredible ridiculous as Schumacher wasn´t great at that circuit and was often beaten
by his teammate there (despite having #1 status)

You mean that stupid video of him beating Herbert by 1.5 seconds and Herbert calling him not so great?

[cheapracer]

Gerhard Berger, among other insiders, said Schumacher set his cars up extremely oversteery.

That doesn't mean he likes oversteer though, it may be to offset a understeery style if the car was setup neutrally.

For what I watched over the years he was one of the foremost 4 wheel drifters I have ever seen - that doesn't mean good or bad but sure nicer to watch than Prost but maybe not as exciting as Mansell.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Top F1 drivers can easily adept to different cars.

For example. Lewis in his rookie season almost won the WDC in a understeerign car, and in his 2nd year he became WDC in a oversteering car. So it doesn't really have an impact on top drivers.

The main difference between now and then is

Ferrari 2004 = computer driven cars, Bridgestone specifically designed for Ferrari, unlimited testing + biggest budget in F1, Rory Byrne
Mercedes 2010 = same tyres for everybody, ban on testing, no Rory Byrne, less computers.

MS simply enjoyed a massive car advantage over everybody while being #1 driver in the team, and Ferrari was simply the best team around with their Bridgestone tyres and car.

edit; So MS will never dominate F1 like he did.

So according to your logic Schumacher is and never was a Top F1 driver? Just merely a lucky one who smashed every record in the F1 book, won 7 championships, 91 grand prix victories and beat every team mate? Just down to lots of testing and money eh? Nothing more....Hmmmmmm

Ironically, Lewis is also in Top F1 team (has never been in a bad team) with lots of money and state of the art facilities (simulator etc). He was also probably the most prepared rookie to make his F1 debut in history too. I'd like to see Hamilton in an inferior car and see how well he copes before consigning him to All Time Great status after only 3.5 years (remember Villenueuve after 1997?)

[Fortymark]

often?
finished ahead of his team mate in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001,2002,2004,2005,2006

1994 DQ
1995 accident
1996 hydraulics
1997 wheel

lost to his team mate in 1992,2003,2010
so he "won" 8 times, had 4 times terminal failures and lost 3 times
yet he was often beaten?

Schumacher was never really fast at Silverstone, he has what, 1 pole there?
In 1999 he crashed out while trying to overtake his teammate.
In 2000 Rubens poled and was leading him until he DNF. In 2002 Rubens was sent to the back of the
grid and caught Michael but as we knew by now, Rubens wasn´t allowed to beat MS.
In 2005 MS just finished ahead of Rubens down in 6:th place.
In 2006 he was ahead of his teammate but beaten by Alonso.

He has had 2-3 good races at Silverstone, despite sitting in a top 1-3 car in for
16 races.

My point is that the video is BS, why show telemetri on a driver that isn´t even good
on that track and that often gets beaten by his unsported teammate?!

[FigJam]

In the older days of F1, it was an easier prospect to chop and change cars and still be very competitive. In the last few years, its been clear that's not the case and it can be even the slightest changes that upsets a driver. The more technical its become, the harder it is.

In the last few years, we've all seen Barrichello, Raikkonen, Montoya, Villeneuve etc struggle to immediately adapt after either a change of team or change of charecteristics with a car. Simply meaning that they have taken time to adapt. Especially when thrown into the deep end, be it with a lack of testing or otherwise.

Schumacher has encountered the exact same scenario. However for MS its even harder because he's had a 3 year layoff.

Now before you all jump on that, remember this - Schumacher took 3 years off from Motor Racing at any sort of elite level in its entirity. That is 3 years basically not racing anything at all. Couple the lack of testing for him once he returned and, really, is it any wonder he's struggled?

Whoever honestly expected more had NFI what MS was about to do. Also they completely underestimated his circumstances and completely overestimated his ability. He was an absolute giant of the sport...but he was not invincible. Nor was he Superman.

People have said that a Raikkonen or a Villeneuve or Montoya would struggle now to return (given MS' plight) and they may initially, particularly JV or JPM (KR hasn't been gone for long). However I'm willing to wager that given they all have stayed in elite Motorsport since leaving F1, they would find it easier than MS.

It's a big jump from not doing anything for 3 years....to regularly racing in WRC, NASCAR, Sportscars etc. It keeps you fine tuned to an extent, even though the disciplines are different. Not even MS could counteract 3 years inactivity and lack of testing. It was a huge task.

[Mauseri]

You don't believe Gerhard Berger and Rubens Barrichello?

To me it's clear that in his Ferrari time the car was understeering at least in some way. Of course part of the stable look of travelling could be that he caused the car to understeer instead of the car being understeering by nature, but I'd not be sure about that. Berger never was Schumacher's teammate, but if he has said something he propably talked about what Schumacher left them at Benetton. Some people have said Schumacher preferred more oversteer in the beginning of his F1 career.


One interesting thing is that when Montoya came at McLaren is that he complained the car understeer. And same when Kimi came at Ferrari the complaints were the same. Surely there is something more to it than understeer-oversteer. If the car doesn't handle to their liking, the skilled drivers can always cope with oversteer, but the understeer should only occur where they like the car to understeer.

Edited by Bianchimont, 17 July 2010 - 09:34.

[cheapracer]

Schumacher was never really fast at Silverstone, he has what, 1 pole there?
In 1999 he crashed out while trying to overtake his teammate.
In 2000 Rubens poled and was leading him until he DNF.
In 2002 Rubens was sent to the back of the grid and caught Michael but as we knew by now, Rubens wasn´t allowed to beat MS.
In 2005 MS just finished ahead of Rubens down in 6:th place.
In 2006 he was ahead of his teammate but beaten by Alonso.

He has had 2-3 good races at Silverstone, despite sitting in a top 1-3 car in for
16 races.

My point is that the video is BS, why show telemetri on a driver that isn´t even good
on that track and that often gets beaten by his unsported teammate?!

In 1999 his brakes failed. (I would lol but poor bastard broke his legs).

2000 ! Rubens was on pole (to his credit) and what happened in the race? Passed on the outside by DC and then spun.

2002 Rubens stalled, who's fault is that? Very debatable if he could have passed MS from 20 seconds behind by the way - Dream on, he didn't get near MS in the race.

2005 Hang on there, simple question, did he finish in front of or behind his team mate?

2006 Hang on there, simple question, did he finish in front of or behind his team mate?

You should be on stage Faultymark, you are comedy gold

[Fortymark]

In 1999 his brakes failed. (I would lol but poor bastard broke his legs).

2000 ! Rubens was on pole (to his credit) and what happened in the race? Passed on the outside by DC and then spun.

2002 Rubens stalled, who's fault is that? Very debatable if he could have passed MS from 20 seconds behind by the way - Dream on, he didn't get near MS in the race.

2005 Hang on there, simple question, did he finish in front of or behind his team mate?

2006 Hang on there, simple question, did he finish in front of or behind his team mate?

You should be on stage Faultymark, you are comedy gold

Hahaha!
His brakes never failed in 1999, it´s just a BS excuse from Ferrari and himself.
He misjudged the braking point when he thought Irvine was going to let him throught
which he didn´t.
In 2000 Rubens was faster than MS.
In 2002 Rubens didn´t stall, he had a "problem" just like he had in Spain. From there on he charged
through the field until he came behind MS and then stopped racing. A classic situation for him, just
hold position and stay behind MS.
As I said, in 2005 and 2006 MS finished ahead of his teammate but he was still beaten just like my
original point was. Michael was never fast at Silverstone or/and was often beaten by his teammate.


If we look at qualifying in which the telemetri comes from in the video
Rubens poled in 2000, 2003 and was ahead in 2002, 2004, 2005. He only lost in 2001.

Michael was faster than Massa in 2006 but slower than Rosberg with 0,8 seconds.

Now, bye bye

[aditya-now]

Your post was excellent until you got to this bit... It doesn't beg that question because if one were to ask that, one could ask the same thing about every driver who ever won a title.

You are absolutely right on that one, Dan, and this is why I posted it - every driver who was dominant in his time was partly so because he adapted to the regs better than other drivers of that time, or more simply put, because his natural driving style and the rules at that given time coincided in a very lucky way. Please don´t misunderstand - not that he is/was not an excellent driver as well, but he (whoever) profited from a given set at a given time which coincided most luckily with what he himself had to offer in terms of driving ability.

This is not only true for Michael, but can be said about any driver in any period. That´s why I added "not that anyone wants to hear that", because it means that even a great driver is relative to the conditions and circumstances given at the time when he was great.

In so far you could call Jackie Stewart one of the greatest, because he, more consequently than any other driver in the history of the sport, knew when to quit, when to quit on top. Stewarts self-restraint was enormous and admirable - you can imagine how many people called for Michael´s return, and he finally yielded (luckily he spared himself the humiliation that would have been Ferrari 2009 replacing Massa.....).

Now lets see if 2011, Pirelli, a new car, and the rules of 2011 are offering something that is of better use for Michael than the 2010 situation.
Yet, speaking about 2010 in isolation, one has to say that MS is not coping as well as Rosberg.

[Ferrari_F1_fan_2001]

Hahaha!
His brakes never failed in 1999, it´s just a BS excuse from Ferrari and himself.
He misjudged the braking point when he thought Irvine was going to let him throught
which he didn´t.
In 2000 Rubens was faster than MS.
In 2002 Rubens didn´t stall, he had a "problem" just like he had in Spain. From there on he charged
through the field until he came behind MS and then stopped racing. A classic situation for him, just
hold position and stay behind MS.
As I said, in 2005 and 2006 MS finished ahead of his teammate but he was still beaten just like my
original point was. Michael was never fast at Silverstone or/and was often beaten by his teammate.


If we look at qualifying in which the telemetri comes from in the video
Rubens poled in 2000, 2003 and was ahead in 2002, 2004, 2005. He only lost in 2001.

Michael was faster than Massa in 2006 but slower than Rosberg with 0,8 seconds.

Now, bye bye

Cheapracer is right, you ARE pure comedy gold. For that reason alone, you win

Edited by Ferrari_F1_fan_2001, 17 July 2010 - 11:40.

[Diablobb81]

Why do people bother to answer? Fortymark is the unfunny version of Frans.