681 replies to this topic

[FordFiesta]

Because Vettel had the better car 90-95% of their mutual F1 time, it was obvious it could only be 2008. And on Alonso's side, there are a few examples. So, no. Didn't make me use plenty of time.

[AlexPrime]

Someone’s extremely bitter it seems!

and my ignore function is not working

[as65p]

and my ignore function is not working

 

Well, just ignore it.

[boillot]

It was hard to find an example, wasn't it.

Yes because Vettel had better or much better cars than Alonso in each and every season from 2009 to 2018.

Edited by boillot, 28 January 2019 - 20:58.

[sabjit]

https://www.skysport...ys-nico-rosberg

 

Normally we get articles saying the defending champ is under pressure but it seems going into the season all the pressure seems to be on the challenger. Given his track record with coping with pressure I fear this could be the season that kills Seb's legacy for good.

[boillot]

https://www.skysport...ys-nico-rosberg

Normally we get articles saying the defending champ is under pressure but it seems going into the season all the pressure seems to be on the challenger. Given his track record with coping with pressure I fear this could be the season that kills Seb's legacy for good.

On the other side, it may be the last chance for him to actually build his legacy.

[alainsfoot]

Irvines Suzuka '99 is a bit mysterious, in that normally that was one of his better if not his best track. Maybe he simply crushed under the pressure... also I doubt  everyone at Ferrari would have been completely enthusiastic over a Irvine championship, probably least of all (and somewhat understandably) Schumacher.

 i recall at least one race when schumacher had returned and was suspiciously slow, when if he had been slightly faster - as he had been before and after- he would have taken points away from irvines rivals and enormously helped irvine to win the title.  it was pretty transparent.

[baddog]

 i recall at least one race when schumacher had returned and was suspiciously slow, when if he had been slightly faster - as he had been before and after- he would have taken points away from irvines rivals and enormously helped irvine to win the title.  it was pretty transparent.

 

Wow, thats just a huge pack of lies... 

 

A reminder: In the Malaysian Grand Prix of 1999, Michael drove possibly the most obvious and best supporting drive to give another driver the win I have ever seen.

[Tsarwash]

 i recall at least one race when schumacher had returned and was suspiciously slow, when if he had been slightly faster - as he had been before and after- he would have taken points away from irvines rivals and enormously helped irvine to win the title.  it was pretty transparent.

Which race would that be, Malaysia or Japan ? 

[kosmos]

What concerns Leclerc performance, I'll tell you this. Yes, of course it is possible that Leclerc can't handle the pressure in Ferrari and this being only his second season F1,

 

 

Most pressure it's on Vettel's shoulders though, that could play into Leclerc's hands.

Edited by kosmos, 29 January 2019 - 10:03.

[FordFiesta]

Most pressure it's on Vettel's shoulders though, that could paly into Leclerc's hands.

But the essential point is that he then has to do it during the first few weekends of the season where he could instantly (?) get the momentum and the respect of the team on his side. Otherwise, ...

[as65p]

Which race would that be, Malaysia or Japan ? 

 

Well, I don't think it will ever be more than another conspiracy theorie (wasn't there a proper thread for it once?).

 

The facts are that MS in that years car dominated Malayisa at will, but wasn't able to seriously challenge Hakkinen in Japan. Which could well be innocent stuff like the cars being more suited to the respective tracks. Or... maybe MS was more than happy to show who's boss on his return in Malaysia, but not so keen to actually win the championship for his teammate in Japan. Which I personally could even relate to, TBH.

 

Oh, and the 3rd fact we know, unless prepared to label di Montezemolo a liar, Schumacher himself wasn't keen on returning for the last two races of 1999, he had to be forced by LDM to get into the car in order to help Irvine.

[Shuffle]

Well, I don't think it will ever be more than another conspiracy theorie (wasn't there a proper thread for it once?).

 

The facts are that MS in that years car dominated Malayisa at will, but wasn't able to seriously challenge Hakkinen in Japan. Which could well be innocent stuff like the cars being more suited to the respective tracks. Or... maybe MS was more than happy to show who's boss on his return in Malaysia, but not so keen to actually win the championship for his teammate in Japan. Which I personally could even relate to, TBH.

 

Oh, and the 3rd fact we know, unless prepared to label di Montezemolo a liar, Schumacher himself wasn't keen on returning for the last two races of 1999, he had to be forced by LDM to get into the car in order to help Irvine.

I believe Irvine himself has stated that after the controversy of the bargeboards after the Malaysia race, where both Ferrari's were briefly disqualified, they lost their fancy floor for the finale at Suzuka. I think it was on that Sky F1 thing that they used to do where they interviewed legends of the sport.

 

(whether or not Irvine is a legend is up for debate lol)

[Lights]

i recall at least one race when schumacher had returned and was suspiciously slow, when if he had been slightly faster - as he had been before and after- he would have taken points away from irvines rivals and enormously helped irvine to win the title. it was pretty transparent.

Suspiciously slow = almost lapping his teammate who's supposed to win/deserve the championship?

[Tsarwash]

Well, I don't think it will ever be more than another conspiracy theorie (wasn't there a proper thread for it once?).

 

The facts are that MS in that years car dominated Malayisa at will, but wasn't able to seriously challenge Hakkinen in Japan. Which could well be innocent stuff like the cars being more suited to the respective tracks. Or... maybe MS was more than happy to show who's boss on his return in Malaysia, but not so keen to actually win the championship for his teammate in Japan. Which I personally could even relate to, TBH.

 

Oh, and the 3rd fact we know, unless prepared to label di Montezemolo a liar, Schumacher himself wasn't keen on returning for the last two races of 1999, he had to be forced by LDM to get into the car in order to help Irvine.

It wouldn't have mattered. If Michael had blatantly let Eddie ahead during the Japanese race, Miki would have still won the championship because of how many races he had wont hat year. Eddie simply did not have enough speed in Japan. I can't see a conspiracy at all. Michael obviously helped Eddie as much as he could in Malaysia, and Eddie needed Michael to get ahead of Miki in Japan to slow him down enough, so that Eddie could have won the race. Once Miki was ahead, all they could do was hope for a retirement, which didn't happen.

 

Also it would have looked terrible if Eddie had won the WDC that year because of races won, considering that two of those wins have been so transparently gifted to him by team orders. 

[boillot]

It would have been a terrible irony if Irvine won the first title after 20 years.
Even if Michael deliberately lost in Japan, it would have been completely understandable.
And I liked Irvine but if he wanted the title, he should have won it himself in Japan.

[PlatenGlass]

I just found this discussion of Irvine hidden away in a topic about Vettel losing points to Hamilton. I know it's totally off topic, but I'm posting anyway.

I don't think Irvine was that bad a driver. Obviously he was miles off Schumacher, but all Schumacher's team-mates were back then, and I get the feeling that it was impossible not to be. Not because of Schumacher's greatness (not that he wasn't great) because of the way the team was set up. It's also interesting that Barrichello was also basically nowhere relative to Schumacher in 2000 and 2001 but then started getting a bit closer, and I remember reading at the time Barrichello saying that Ferrari was more of a two-car team later than it was when he joined.

I know it's only a sample size of one, but Irvine outqualified Schumacher in their first race together, arguably before things were properly set up in Schumacher's favour. He was also fast at Japan in 1997 when the team wanted him to be for their plan, and at virtually no other time. People say that's because it was Suzuka where Irvine always did well - look at the gap to Schumacher in both 1998 and 1999 and it will tell you a different story.

Would Hill and Coulthard have had the successful careers they'd had if their "opportunity" had come as Schumacher's team-mate at Benetton or Ferrari? Of course not. They would have just been another pair of Herberts/Barrichellos/Irvines.

[Tsarwash]

It would have been a terrible irony if Irvine won the first title after 20 years.
Even if Michael deliberately lost in Japan, it would have been completely understandable.
And I liked Irvine but if he wanted the title, he should have won it himself in Japan.

Even with Michaels absence due to the injury, I would have had no problem with Irvine winning the championship, if he hadn't have been gifted the two wins through blatant team orders. (I don't like them.)

[boillot]

Even with Michaels absence due to the injury, I would have had no problem with Irvine winning the championship, if he hadn't have been gifted the two wins through blatant team orders. (I don't like them.)

Now going totally off topic but Piquet was criticised so much for his 1987 title despite winning it not due to team orders but against a favoured teammate.

[FordFiesta]

[...]

Would Hill and Coulthard have had the successful careers they'd had if their "opportunity" had come as Schumacher's team-mate at Benetton or Ferrari? Of course not. They would have just been another pair of Herberts/Barrichellos/Irvines.

Coulthard was a Barrichello.

And Dhill wouldn't have happened without Senna's death.

[MortenF1]

Coulthard was a Barrichello.

And Dhill wouldn't have happened without Senna's death.

Doesn’t hold water. DC beat Barrichello far too often in an inferior car, for them to be rated equal. DC was a good deal better.

[Dan333SP]

 

 

The facts are that MS in that years car dominated Malayisa at will, but wasn't able to seriously challenge Hakkinen in Japan. Which could well be innocent stuff like the cars being more suited to the respective tracks. Or... maybe MS was more than happy to show who's boss on his return in Malaysia, but not so keen to actually win the championship for his teammate in Japan. Which I personally could even relate to, TBH.

 

Yea, MSC got beat off the line in Japan, but there was literally no way Irvine could have won that title simply because he himself was so slow all weekend. He was out-qualified by 1.5 seconds, he was even behind HHF on the grid, and he finished almost a full lap behind MSC. Maybe if Eddie were running 3-4 seconds behind MSC, he would have had some incentive to really start to push and find a way past Mika, but there's no way he could have gotten ahead and held up Mika so much that a dreadfully slow Eddie could have passed both of them and taken the win. There was no conspiracy. Irvine lost the title through poor driving.

 

I remember the lead up to that race where people were talking about how Eddie was a Suzuka "ace" thanks to his time racing in Japan and how he had such a good shot at taking pole himself... and then qualifying happened.

[alainsfoot]

ok, i stand corrected. thanks

[Lights]

Doesn’t hold water. DC beat Barrichello far too often in an inferior car, for them to be rated equal. DC was a good deal better.

Was he really? I disagree. Fairly equal IMO. What did Coulthard show to be rated a good deal better? Yes he did beat Hakkinen some times, but Hakkinenen is no Schumacher. And if you look outside of the McLaren/Ferrari years, Barrichello was more impressive at all his other teams and convincingly beat most of his teammates.

Edited by Lights, 30 January 2019 - 10:22.

[FordFiesta]

Yes he did beat Hakkinen some times, but Hakkinenen is no Schumacher so it wo.

Yeah, (like Dhill) probably Häkkinen wouldn't have happened either without Senna's death.

Was he really that good? He had plenty of crappy McLarens to prove he can pull a ... And I'm not talking about second places with 50 seconds gaps to the winner in 1994 or 1995 or 1996.

Quite everything was terrible in the second half of the 90's. It took too long that finally Alonso (and an at that time super fast Räikkönen arrived) to see a real counterpart. Villeneuve was refreshing in his approach, but I kinda hated him for his B.A.R. decision.

Edited by FordFiesta, 30 January 2019 - 09:41.

[sopa]

Doesn’t hold water. DC beat Barrichello far too often in an inferior car, for them to be rated equal. DC was a good deal better.

 

You probably mean Coulthard beat Barrichello in 2001. Fair enough, DC was better in that season. What else do you mean? 2000? McLaren and Ferrari fairly evenly matched, you can consider DC a notch better in terms of performance. But these were Coulthard's two of best seasons. On the flipside I argue Barrichello was better than Coulthard in seasons like 1999 or 2003. Overall it evens out.

[PlatenGlass]

Yeah, (like Dhill) probably Häkkinen wouldn't have happened either without Senna's death.

Was he really that good? He had plenty of crappy McLarens to prove he can pull a ... And I'm not talking about second places with 50 seconds gaps to the winner in 1994 or 1995 or 1996.

Quite everything was terrible in the second half of the 90's. It took too long that finally Alonso (and an at that time super fast Räikkönen arrived) to see a real counterpart. Villeneuve was refreshing in his approach, but I kinda hated him for his B.A.R. decision.

I think Hakkinen is probably more likely to have happened than Villeneuve without Senna's death. Hakkinen was already in at McLaren, whereas with Senna at Williams there would have been less reason to try and invent another top driver there. Had Villeneuve come in alongside Senna, I fear it would have been one-way traffic.

[Kalmake]

Senna would'a gone to Ferrari 1996 and Schumacher back to being a Mercedes driver at McLaren. 

[FordFiesta]

Could be. Otherwise, Ron Dennis said something like that both of them kinda felt that it was a temporary "good bye". Who knows, probably he would've come back to McLaren in 1996 or 1997.

[PayasYouRace]

I like the idea of a 1996/7 period with Senna and Irvine(?) at Ferrari, Hill and Villeneuve at Williams, Schumacher and Häkkinen at McLaren and Alesi and Berger at Benetton.

[Loosenut]

I'm sure Frank would have approached Michael about drive. That would have been a lot of fun..

[MortenF1]

Was he really? I disagree. Fairly equal IMO. What did Coulthard show to be rated a good deal better? Yes he did beat Hakkinen some times, but Hakkinenen is no Schumacher. And if you look outside of the McLaren/Ferrari years, Barrichello was more impressive at all his other teams and convincingly beat most of his teammates.

 

 

You probably mean Coulthard beat Barrichello in 2001. Fair enough, DC was better in that season. What else do you mean? 2000? McLaren and Ferrari fairly evenly matched, you can consider DC a notch better in terms of performance. But these were Coulthard's two of best seasons. On the flipside I argue Barrichello was better than Coulthard in seasons like 1999 or 2003. Overall it evens out.

2001 certainly, but also 2002. DC sometimes beat the Ferraris and obviously Barrichello more often than Schumacher. Generally he was "too close" to Barrichello given the performance of the cars.

I don't agree Barrichello was the better of the two in either '99 or '03, even if '99 was a fine season from him. In '99 DC retired 7 or 8 times (just one of them was through his mistake) which colors that season negatively for many, I think. He had plenty of good performances, but the car died on him too often. 2003 - many think back to his struggles in one-lap qualifying, and indeed he wasn't on top of that. Personally I think that season would've been very different had he won the first three races of the season, which he was on course to do. I think he fell off a bit mentally with that. If he could've built on a strong opening of the season, it would have been different, I am sure.

 

"Häkkinen was no Schumacher." No, but he was the only one Schumacher really feared, always. I don't remember now who said it, but the quote is something like "put them in equal cars, and Häkkinen would be on pole, Schumacher would win the race." DC did well against Häkkinen. Regrettably he beat him the years the car wasn't quite up to it.

Edited by MortenF1, 30 January 2019 - 21:33.