97 replies to this topic

[taran]

My question is not meant as flame bait but as a serious question so M$ fanatics can retract their claws.

Most sports writers agree that drivers have (at best) a period of 5 years in which they are in their prime, just as most athletes. During this time frame, experience, racecraft and raw speed are universally high and overall well balanced. After this period, raw speed (which is based on reflexes, stamina, concentration, motivation etc.) declines while experience and racecraft may increase but only serve to compensate. After that reaches a plateau, overall competitiveness declines (from a very high level in case of some drivers) and a new generation of drivers surpass the old (in speed if not results). While it may not be readily recognized at the time, in hindsight the period of decline can usually be accurately pin-pointed.

Nelson Piquet was arguably in his prime from 1980 to 1984 when his driving was top notch. Alain Prost’ prime years were probably from 1984 to 1988. Ayrton Senna was at his height from 1987 to 1992. These periods might not have been their most succesfull or they may have had good seasons later on, but during this timeframe, these drivers were IMO at the height of their abilities. (And it nicely follows the 5-year maximum of primeness )

Returning to Schumacher, it can be argued that Michael entered his prime in 1995. Before that time there were the occasional mistakes, self-inflicted or instigated by his teams, and a certain juvenile inexperience common to all drivers at that stage. But from 1995 onwards even the rabid English press had to confine their attacks to his (lack of) sporting ethics and personality as his driving was simply beautiful. His already low mistake count became even more pronounced and MS seemed to be a more complete “package”. Something I would not say of the MS of 1994.

Adding the 5-year maximum to 1995 would place us firmly in 2000 as the year that Schumacher’s powers start to decline. Decline in a driver doesn’t mean he forgets how to drive a formula car, it simply means that his abilities lessen. As Nikki Lauda proved in 1984, experience and racecraft can compensate to a certain extent but Nikki would be the first to agree that he couldn’t compete with a young Prost on speed. A lesson Prost learned himself in 1988 and that he applied in 1989, beating Senna.

So can we see that Schumacher is declining? Is he perhaps not as fast ast he used to be, despite the many excellent race victories in 2000 and 2001 and one and quite possibly two worldtitles? Is Barrichello’s nearly equal speed in qualifying (on occasion as Barrichello is somewhat erratic) but not in racing an indicator that Schumacher is slowing down and using his experience and racecraft to stay ahead? Or does it just mean that Barrichello is actually bloody fast and if he had Brawn & Co behind him he would be showning MS a clean pair of heels? If, at the end of Schumacher’s career, we could all see that the 2000 season had been the moment that Michael moved out of his prime, what would be the indicators we would agree on?


What sayeth the learned forum?

[Todd]

Originally posted by taran
Is Barrichello’s nearly equal speed in qualifying (on occasion as Barrichello is somewhat erratic) but not in racing an indicator that Schumacher is slowing down and using his experience and racecraft to stay ahead? Or does it just mean that Barrichello is actually bloody fast and if he had Brawn & Co behind him he would be showning MS a clean pair of heels?

I can't see the logic in this. Barrichello is as far off of Schumacher in qualifying as you will find one highly paid F1 driver to be from another. That is flaw 1. From there, you can't really build much of an argument, but to say that Rubens would beat MS with better backing shows your real agenda. What does it tell you that you have to ignore the facts and then avoid logic to try and model a possible scenario where Schumacher isn't simply in another world of talent from the other drivers?

[Bruce]

If this is Schumacher past his prime, I'd have hated to see him IN it...

[Lephturn]

I believe this year is the START of his prime. He is better this year than he has ever been. Making less mistakes, calmer, more experienced, and still extremely fast.

In my view MS seems to still be getting better. I haven't even seen him level off yet, let alone decline.

[tifosi]

No he hasn't yet reached his prime, soon he will and then F1 will really be boring:stoned:


I always find it amusing how people can fix time periods so well on individuals. Everybody is different, some peoples 'prime' might last seven years, some three. You cannot define any individual by some statistic. Of course that begs the question as to how do you define prime.

Lets' assume from 1995 to 1999 Michael is the fastest driver in Formula One, he wins one WDC and possibly loses two others (97 and 98), which he could have won, but arguably makes idiotic mistakes, but he is fast.

Then from 2000 - 2004, he is slower but wins 3 or 4 WDC's, rarely makes mistakes and no longer smashes into people.

Which period is his 'prime'?

[Bruce]

One other thing, taran - I'd disagree with you on Senna - remember, his race at Donnington? That was 1993... 3 poles in a Williams, outqualifying team-mate Hill by 1.6 odd seconds in Brazil, .5 second at Aida and .7 second at Imola - for a total of about 2.8 seconds in 3 races. Senna was taken from us in his prime.

[philhitchings]

It's a complex question you are posing. Would rubens have managed to be as erratically close in the 310b?
Would michael still be winning, or driving racing as well in a supertech powered machine or god forbid The first BAR!!!

surely it is the car, the engine, the team, and the driver that make the package.
Just look at the dissarray that we have seen in Prost, and recently Mclaren and Jordan. TC particularly as well as public swan dives

adrian has certainly had more brain fade than DC ever will :-))

Michael has made errors during the past five years in so much as his qualifying has often appeared to be beyond the ragged edge. Mika has until this season been far superior in that respect.
His racecraft has left us with questions as to why no-one can touch him at times (the string of qualifying laps in Hungary, where he went on to beat Mclaren). It is his durability that still marks him out. An average of 7 points a race since Monza last year, seems to me to be IMHO not a sign of someone in decline.

I think that you do make a very valid point every driver has a period of time at his peak, DC looked like he was entering his last summer, and the beginning of this season.
But I don't believe that it has to be five years. Perhaps had Senna lived, he would have delayed Michael's time by a couple of years. And in that sense we may see Michael reach the five championships that I hope he gets (my heart says that Fangio's record will not be beaten, though equalled yes)

We are I believe in an exciting period Button, Raikkonen, Heidfeld Alonso, Ralf, etc. are all indicators of battles to come (JPM I'm not decided on). These guys are so young have they seriously got till their mid twenties to flourish?? I don't think so.
I do think it is going to get harder for Michael to win (competition should close up over time, look at Williams) but his racing is still up there for me.

[stuck-in-first-gear]

A very good friend of mine who also followed Schu's career very closely said to me after the Brazil GP that "Schu's era is over " referring to Monty's passing move.

Young Michael certainly would have done something about Monty's attempt without regards for the consequences.

Watching him drive nowadays he seems to be much more focused on carrying the car over the finish line and not trying to make everybody else look like second class drivers.

He certainly matured over the years but he' certainly less of an entertainer than 5 years ago - shame, really...

[Melbourne Park]

I think he's a touch slower in the reflexs, but very decisive strategically. Overall better therefore. But if he slows a bit more on the poles, life would then get quite a bit more difficult for him.

[Viss1]

Originally posted by stuck-in-first-gear
Young Michael certainly would have done something about Monty's attempt without regards for the consequences.

Attaining a certain maturity level is part of entering your prime... you could say it took until the '99 season before he attained that level of maturity. That puts us at 2004 for the decline.;)

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by stuck-in-first-gear

Young Michael certainly would have done something about Monty's attempt without regards for the consequences.

(

Well he did touch wheels with him; he did go onto the grass. Your expectations must have wanted him to crash out JPM and damage the Ferrari in the process. I prefer the smart racer to the loose canon and besides that's what's now required to be successful.

[mhferrari]

You can tell only in hindsight.

Well, he has dominated the field, even with the good, solid FW23.

[stuck-in-first-gear]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Well he did touch wheels with him; he did go onto the grass. Your expectations must have wanted him to crash out JPM and damage the Ferrari in the process. I prefer the smart racer to the loose canon and besides that's what's now required to be successful.

I just think that Schu was rather caught napping which he later also admitted to some extent. When Monty was already next to him, he didn't really have a choice. :yawn:

This wouldn't have happened in his old duels with DH.

[vettel]

Mansell only hit his prime in his 40s in my opinion. So that gives MS still a few more years to go.

[arcwulf7]

The word prime in athletics is a pretty relative one. Prime really means a time when the athlete was clearly the best of the field or as high as he went in the field as the case may be. There's no doubt that some physical decline occurs at least by age 30. In some sports like swimming or gymnastics athletes wind up there careers in the early 20's. There are other sports, which stress endurance, precision and experience -- marathon running, cricket, baseball, basket ball, golf, f1 racing -- where athletes really hit their prime about age 30, and by age 36 are on the decline. One thing that has to be taken into account with Michael is his success is not only due to the physical but the intellectual intensity he applies to the sport. His work outs are so grinding that i doubt any other f1 driver comes close to matching them. He applies so much concentration to studying testing data from Ferrari (he's updated on all mechanical and testing developments every second day) and tracks that he is able to run a thoroughly optimum race for the car every grand prix. He has a tremendous abilities of endurance and concentration which are less ravaged by age than reaction times and strength. Michael really is in the midst of his prime right now, and will be through 2004 and the end of his contract with Ferrari. Once he can't apply the same level of excellence to his driving as he can now, i assume he'll retire from f1.

[Dr.Raj]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
I think he's a touch slower in the reflexs, but very decisive strategically. Overall better therefore. But if he slows a bit more on the poles, life would then get quite a bit more difficult for him.

Why do you think his reflexes are slower?

I just think that Schu was rather caught napping which he later also admitted to some extent. When Monty was already next to him, he didn't really have a choice.

He's been caught napping before, Jerez '97 for example. Like Schumi says, he makes one mistake evry year.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Dr.Raj


Why do you think his reflexes are slower?


He's been caught napping before, Jerez '97 for example. Like Schumi says, he makes one mistake evry year.

I looked at the incident on the video when JPM overshot the corner; it seemed to me that MS had the intention of sweeping behind the tail of JPM's car; MS - before I edited this I wrote that JPM had started to do the sweep, it should have read MS had started to do the sweep,and then realised he might not make it. I felt then that he made a mistake - split second stuff - that he wouldn't have made a few years ago. It was just my impression from looking at it that his reflex was not as hot as they have so often been.

Of course I don't think our reflexs get better with age either!

[man from martinlaakso]

If we look MS's qualification performaces, they seem rather strong in this year. Naturally the excellent Ferrari car has effected to that, but still there is no clear downgoing trend. However, I think, that the performance level what MS had in 2000 was so good, that it is not probable that he will improve from that. So I would say, that MS is now at his prime, and perhaps soon reaching the end of it. It is very heavy mentally and physically to stay on the very top for many years. But so far he is going strong, no doubt about that.

[taran]

Thanks for the replies so far guys.

For the record, I don’t believe that Rubens is as fast as Michael (I’m not a closet Brazilian) but he is closer than any other teammate Michael has had. This could be because of the “easy to drive” Ferrari of 2000/2001 but might just as well be because the Great One simply isn’t as fast as he used to be.

So why is my assumption flawed, Todd? Even Irvine flew when he received the full attention of Brawn & Co. in 1999, while he is not generally perceived to be exceptionally fast as a driver. It stands to reason that therefore part of Schumacher’s speed is based on Brawn & Co while this is denied to Barrichello. Yet Rubens is still almost as fast (but never quite) on occasion. How would you explain that?

As to the definition of prime, it’s my question, so we’ll use mine ;) i.e. the period when raw speed, experience and racecraft are all universally high. To answer Tifosi’s post, in 1993 Alain Prost drove a solid season, made few mistakes, won a lot of races and scored many poles. Yet nobody would call it his best season. I would say that Alain was in his prime in 1985-1987 when the paddock felt that he was not merely the best driver but also the fastest!
For me, Michael’s prime started in 1995 and that means that he is slowly moving past it as the seasons pile up. Yes, not all people are alike and 5 years are not “written in stone” but all people are subject to aging, even Michael.

However, if one defines prime as the period that a driver does not need his raw speed to get results but can safely rely on his experience and racecraft, it changes the picture. But I still prefer my definition!

Bruce, I have thought about 1993 and Senna. But according to many “insiders” and McLaren members, Senna in 1993 was not the Senna of old. He did less testing, he was less focused and seemed less hungry. Beating Prost seemed to be his greatest motivation and when the Mclaren became increasingly less competitive in the middle of the year, he lost interest. Something that never would have happened before. So, while he was still good, he was definately no longer the fastest driver out there. We all lost something special in 1994 and will never know how it would have played out but I feel that Senna might have needed a superior Williams to beat Schumacher in 1994/1995 whereas in his younger years he might have got by with the less than wonderful FW16. Remember, Senna was 34 in 1994 and the end of his career was already in sight! Many people have mentioned that he had lost his characteristic intensity and was getting tired of all the bullshit surrounding racing, he even missed Alain Prost, for so long his nemesis.


So, I have no secret agenda to prove that Michael has “lost his mojo”. I simply wish to know if other people feel that Michael is (slowly) losing his outright speed and therefore going the way of all the great champions.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by taran
So why is my assumption flawed, Todd? Even Irvine flew when he received the full attention of Brawn & Co. in 1999, while he is not generally perceived to be exceptionally fast as a driver. It stands to reason that therefore part of Schumacher’s speed is based on Brawn & Co while this is denied to Barrichello. Yet Rubens is still almost as fast (but never quite) on occasion. How would you explain that?

Watch Malaysia and Suzuka 1999 again, and tell me how close EI was to Michael, even when he had the whole team (Including Schumacher) at his disposal.

[Dr.Raj]

Taran, Eddie got closer to Michael only when the car ot better. Michael's speciality is to mask the car's handling problems with his driving.

"You can go testing and the gap between Michael and Eddie when the car isn't working properly is huge, but as you get the car working the gap closes because Eddie benefits from the car working properly. If you have a car that's not balanced, is stepping out at the back, then Eddie won't like it, but Michael will still drive it on the limit. You have to understand thisand recognize when you have a problem. You might be going quickly but that just be because Michael's is masking it's problem. - Ross Brawn '98

The F399 was a firly good car. Eddie drove very well in it, hence the results came. When MS came back after his injury he was still faster. He beat Eddie in qual even when all the focus was on Eddie.

[John B]

I second Arcwulfs post - MS' mental approach compensates for aging, as I think it would have for Senna. Plus, he does have some pretty lofty goals to shoot for which should be pretty attainable in the next couple of years. No one has really asserted themselves as the next superstar of F1 at this point either.

[Ali_G]

Originally posted by Bruce
One other thing, taran - I'd disagree with you on Senna - remember, his race at Donnington? That was 1993... 3 poles in a Williams, outqualifying team-mate Hill by 1.6 odd seconds in Brazil, .5 second at Aida and .7 second at Imola - for a total of about 2.8 seconds in 3 races. Senna was taken from us in his prime.

You mustn't remember japan 89 where Senna outqualified Prost by 1.5 seconds.

yes Senna outqualified Hill by 1.6 seconds but that was hill.

Niall

[Mrv]

I don't think Michael has even peeked yet. He is driving better than ever, less mistakes, less pressure and coasting to victories.

[MuMu]

It's difficult to say whether he's still in his prime when his car is good enough to win races without having to push too hard. He's been very very consistent of late, but I wonder if he's still got it in him to fight tooth and nail every race.
With Ralf the only real challenger of late, it gets more difficult to rate him, as I don't think he'd, like, put Ralf 'in the trees/wall' when push comes to shove.
Nevertheless, I see nothing that would suggest that he's on the way down...

[KinetiK]

Originally posted by tifosi
No he hasn't yet reached his prime, soon he will and then F1 will really be boring:stoned:


I always find it amusing how people can fix time periods so well on individuals. Everybody is different, some peoples 'prime' might last seven years, some three. You cannot define any individual by some statistic. Of course that begs the question as to how do you define prime.

Lets' assume from 1995 to 1999 Michael is the fastest driver in Formula One, he wins one WDC and possibly loses two others (97 and 98), which he could have won, but arguably makes idiotic mistakes, but he is fast.

Then from 2000 - 2004, he is slower but wins 3 or 4 WDC's, rarely makes mistakes and no longer smashes into people.

Which period is his 'prime'?

I say he's in his prime right now. Michael Schumacher is in his zenith right now, it's spanned a full season and a half thusfar. He's putting in dominant laps in qualifying and in races and he's in the #1 car right now. Add those two together and you can see why this year's WDC is a snoozer. Most guys can't touch MS on one of his 'off' days... he's just been on for over a year so far. :yawn:

[skylark68]

The mental aspect of being in prime is the most important. When you lose the mental edge, no matter how slight, you move beyond your prime.

I just don't see him moving beyond his prime - yet. Mentally, he is still there and physically, it is widely acknowledged that top physical "form" hits in your 40's, so he is still in top physical shape.

From the end of last year to now, I can't think of a glaring mistake he has made and his points tally is about 7 per race, ahead of last year. That could be answered by Williams and Mclaren DNF's, etc., but I think overall, he is in his prime.

I suspect he wants to leave F1 with a statement and so, I don't expect him to lose his edge for at least another season - next year will tell the tale with Williams and McLaren and will be a better indicator to judge when or if he has moved out of his prime.

[KinetiK]

Originally posted by skylark68
An Anti-BAR fan.

holy crap! you really have lost faith, haven't you. Welcome to our club.

[skylark68]

Originally posted by KinetiK
holy crap! you really have lost faith, haven't you. Welcome to our club.

BAR. I hate to think about it. They represent everything that is wrong in sport, in my humble estimation. And Jacques!

[raceday]

As have been said before, for a track and field athlete, or something corresponding, it’s rather easy to tell when their prime was. It’s when they were most successful. Formula one drivers however depend so much on their equipment and so on so it’s really tricky to tell when their prime was. It will probably come down to something subjective any way you look at it. Vague as it might be, my opinion is that a driver like MS is in his prime as long as his peers in general regard him as the best. That would probably make him still in his prime.

I don’t think it will be long before his performance will drop from this really great level he’s had for years. Maybe a little bit at first so it’s not easy to spot. But it will be more and more evident, especially if the car is not so very good as it’s now. My guess is that he can keep it up at this level this year, next year it’s probably gonna be a slight dip and by 2003 somebody else will probably have come through and by many be regarded as the then currently best?

MS himself said the following (from ITV-F1 28/2 2001):

“ Michael Schumacher has given hope to his title rivals by admitting that it is unlikely he will get any better as a driver.
Days before he opens the defence of his world title in Australia, the Ferrari ace said that if any advances were to come they would have to be made by Ferrari..
He told German newspaper Bild: "I don't think I can pull anything more out of myself. But that doesn't mean we can't go any faster. You can always improve your car and I think we have made improvements to the car.”

This indicates that he has actually peaked as a driver?

[baddog]

In early 1999 I was concerned that michael MIGHT be getting past his best, and that on winning that years WDC he might not be aroudn much longer. His enforced rest seemed to entirely rejuvanate him however, and in the 2 years or so since he has been the old driver again, which is much better to watch. So no, any decline has not begun for him yet, he is currently driving as well, possibly better than any time in his career

Yes hes a little less wild (well sometimes he is) and a little more concerned with collecting that finish, but thats moving into your prime from your irresponsible youth, not moving OUT of it!

Shaun

[Lights-Out]

well said baddog!!

[Winny]

Another point, being on the mental edge for a long period of time drains any athlete no matter how fit and focused they are. This contributes to the fact that their "prime" can only be maintained for so long. MS has an advantage that AP, AS, NM, etc. did not enjoy (albeit a hard-earned one) - he had an enforced recuperation period in 1999. Look how refreshed, relaxed and determined he was when he came back to racing. The fact that Eddie got so close would have spurred him on a bit, as well.

As for someone who may be feeling that all the pieces are not in place to still be in his prime................poor old Mika. This is his fifth high intensity season, 1997 he was driving really well, but the reliability stank, and I think it's starting to show.

[Chris G.]

Judging by the results, he is in his prime. I don't recall any complete brain-fades in 2001 (not to say that it can't happen).

This question would get more play if MS or Ferrari were in a slump.

[kouks]

No

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Chris G.
Judging by the results, he is in his prime. I don't recall any complete brain-fades in 2001 (not to say that it can't happen).

This question would get more play if MS or Ferrari were in a slump.

I agree.

Skylark, what are your sources please. I like to know them, I could do with them in fact.
... it is widely acknowledged that top physical "form" hits in your 40's, so he is still in top physical shape.

By the way, you could also let Greg Norman, Pete Sampras, an untold number of footballers, an even greater number of Olympians, and maybe quite a few wives, etc etc know about those sources!

[Melbourne Park]

Following on from what Chris G. said, I somehow doubt that Ferrari will be the best car next year. For one, its tough to have the fastest car two years in a row. Secondly the McLaren was a brand new car this year; if they ditch the world championship early, they might just hide some of their R&D until next season. Thirdly I suspect the Williams will progress at a high rate. Fourthly there's Michelin.

I think this season is one to treasure for MS fans. For once, he appears to be doing it easy. Most MS fans would say about time.

Next year I think will be very different to this year. And of course, if there are three hot teams, and maybe then an occassional fast fourth or fifth team, then concistancy will be even more important than this or recent two hot team years. Which will mean MS will know this and drive more conservatively in order to rack up points. So we may not know then either.

Sadly I suspect the best way to judge whether MS has the physical speed next year maybe the pole. And while the pole does test a lot, its not quite the same as the race is it? To really know, I'd love MS to have a young and hot #2, who could drive a car the way MS sets it up (can anyone besides his brother do that, even his brother??). You need a same set up driver because all teams focus on their #1.

Who knows MS is such a thinker anyway, he may hang up his hat when he thinks he can no longer win races or a championship. He would have to ignore the loss of income though, which might be tough to do. No doubt Mr Weber would miss the 10% or whatever as well. In a slower car, that could easily happen over the next two years. And if he did retire then we might still argue that he did so at his peak.

[leegle]

The answer to this question is surely that he is not and that he is not likely to be for some time to come. It is also likely that he will retire before he loses any of his edge. Which is bad news for most others.

[Williams]

First of all consider that reflexes really don't have a lot ot do with performance in a racing car. The differences between drivers' reaction times is miniscule compared to the times in which they have to react. So a reduction in reflexes is not going to have a big impact on a drivers' performance with age.

Another factor to consider is Michael Schumacher's physical condition. His physical condition is probably among the best on the grid, but more importantly, his physical condition is undoubtedly far superior to that of any driver from the middle of the nineties on back, as are many of today's drivers. If you take five years as a figure from looking at the peak periods of frontline drivers historically, you can probably tack at least a couple of years onto that for current drivers. Look at Jean Alesi, people were talking about him retiring back in 1995. He may not be at his peak today, but six years on, he's still driving ad in excellent physical condition.

[kouks]

you forget about arytons fitness. as good as shuey

[Jonathan]

originally posted by taran
...Returning to Schumacher, it can be argued that Michael entered his prime in 1995. Before that time there were the occasional mistakes, self-inflicted or instigated by his teams, and a certain juvenile inexperience common to all drivers at that stage. But from 1995 onwards even the rabid English press had to confine their attacks to his (lack of) sporting ethics and personality as his driving was simply beautiful. His already low mistake count became even more pronounced and MS seemed to be a more complete “package”. Something I would not say of the MS of 1994.

I personally would say that Michael hit his 'prime' in 1994. Please remember that back then they were still using the Cosworth V-8 that was way down on power to the Renault / Super-tech powerplant. In order to be competive, Michael often had to drive well past what one would would normally be 'prudent limits'. While I don't think he is as good now as he was back then, I think his years of experiance allow him to compansate for his declining skills. I would not call him past his peak, just yet.

[skylark68]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


I agree.

Skylark, what are your sources please. I like to know them, I could do with them in fact.
... it is widely acknowledged that top physical "form" hits in your 40's, so he is still in top physical shape.

By the way, you could also let Greg Norman, Pete Sampras, an untold number of footballers, an even greater number of Olympians, and maybe quite a few wives, etc etc know about those sources!

My wife wonders the same thing.

What I mean by form is the ratio of fat to muscle and the effect metabolism has on this ratio. In your 40's, metabloism starts to fall and you burn fewer calories per pound of body weight. While energy requirements stay constant to your 60's, it is the effect of slower metabloism, and a higher fat/muscle ratio, that gives people that mid-aged paunch. This ratio increases so that people start gaining a pound per year or so into their 60's.

In order to compensate, you have to expend more to stay even, essentially, and this happens more or less in your 40's. It becomes harder to stay at the same mass as you get older. In other words, when you hit your 40's and you do exactly the same exercise you have been doing for years, you will lose muscle and that will converted to fat.

It's no coincidence, for example, that diabetes hits at your 40's, as do other ailments, including eye strain and eyesight loss, intestinal discomfort (that's why old people drink prune juice), changes to allergies, etc.

(If you are really interested, read about glycolosis)

Sources are many as any book on metabolism or exercise will explain. Try McArdle and Kotch; or Lawrence Lamb, or William Evans, etc.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Williams
First of all consider that reflexes really don't have a lot ot do with performance in a racing car. The differences between drivers' reaction times is miniscule compared to the times in which they have to react. So a reduction in reflexes is not going to have a big impact on a drivers' performance with age.

Sorry but I can't agree with that. If you look at the modern era, not only were there few old WDCs, but the older WDCs drove slower than they did when they were younger. I think reflexes are critical to speed; I thinks its one of the major things that differentiates the top drivers; I think its one of the reasons why some drivers who are great in F3000 suddenly find it a tough new world in F1; everything happens that much quicker, which is what reflexes/reaction time is all about.

As to MS, sure, its seems to me he could drive for even 6 years longer. But I do think that if he could no longer win poles, races and WDCs, and saw the prospects of doing so a tough job, he would not continue driving, despite the money. So if his drive suddenly becomes un competitive, that might spur him to give it up.

However if he no longer could get one of those big three (poles, races or WDCs) and another manufacturer came to him, like Toyota, and said we'll give you not only a drive, but we've got a plan to shift you over from driving and developement into a significant management role of the team in a couple of years, I think that also would tempt him. He loves racing, and the obvious follow on is management in a racing team. If a major offers him that chance, it could also lead to him retiring.

[skylark68]

By the way, when we speak of "reflexes" we actually mean "involuntary" function or movement. If someone hits me in the head with a fist, reflexes come inot paly after the fact.

"Coordination" is the term we use when talking about the working together of these parts (eye/brian/nerve transmission/hand) with the muscles. But I understand what you are saying Williams and Melbourne Park and would say that as you age, coordination necessarily has drop. Does this effect a driver - I suspect so as coordiantion is part of the package.

Coordination is a function of hand/eye (and foot to a limited extent) coordination. In fact, sports specialists use this as a baromoter to determine if someone is falling off the pace. It can be tested quite easily.

In fact that, and peripheral vision, are instrumental in all sports, including racing. The ability of the eye to discern a curve allows a driver to make the necessary changes to go through it faster, or to avoid a slower car, or to avoid a wreck, etc.

They say, for example, that Dale Earnhardt could see the "draft." Some baseball players say they can see ball spin, and the stitching, on a pitch.

It is generally this type of coordination that separates the men from the boys, so to speak. And as you get older, the eyes slow down and nothing we do, and no amounts of money, can bring that deterioration back.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by skylark68


My wife wonders the same thing.

What I mean by form is the ratio of fat to muscle and the effect metabolism has on this ratio. In your 40's, metabloism starts to fall and you burn fewer calories per pound of body weight. While energy requirements stay constant to your 60's, it is the effect of slower metabloism, and a higher fat/muscle ratio, that gives people that mid-aged paunch. This ratio increases so that people start gaining a pound per year or so into their 60's.

In order to compensate, you have to expend more to stay even, essentially, and this happens more or less in your 40's. It becomes harder to stay at the same mass as you get older. In other words, when you hit your 40's and you do exactly the same exercise you have been doing for years, you will lose muscle and that will converted to fat.

It's no coincidence, for example, that diabetes hits at your 40's, as do other ailments, including eye strain and eyesight loss, intestinal discomfort (that's why old people drink prune juice), changes to allergies, etc.

(If you are really interested, read about glycolosis)

Sources are many as any book on metabolism or exercise will explain. Try McArdle and Kotch; or Lawrence Lamb, or William Evans, etc.

OK this metabolism change stuff is great, thanks Skylark I've learned something, and I'm sure all those Fangio fans will now be assured that not only was he the greatest, but he really had the best racing "form" as well.

However metabolism and body fat ratios etc. are not the real issue here in my humble opinion. I think that when the late '20s hit, everyone gets a bit slower. I am comforted when a mid 40 year Jumbo jet pilot who has a slight issue with that extra pound a year comes over the PA and assures everyone on board the 747 that everything is actually just right O'l fine. I'd rather have him than a 32 year old Schuey. But I'd rather bet on a 27 year old Schuey going for the pole than a 33 year old one.

[skylark68]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
However metabolism and body fat ratios etc. are not the real issue here in my humble opinion. I think that when the late '20s hit, everyone gets a bit slower. I am comforted when a mid 40 year Jumbo jet pilot who has a slight issue with that extra pound a year comes over the PA and assures everyone on board the 747 that everything is actually just right O'l fine. I'd rather have him than a 32 year old Schuey. But I'd rather bet on a 27 year old Schuey going for the pole than a 33 year old one.

I absolutely agree. Science is great, but it doesn't make for good perceptions!!

[revvhead]

?????????????
This season, one dnf, all the other results have been 1st or 2nd
Qualifying, better than ever before.
Mentally at the top of his game, he doesnt need to drive like 94 and humiliate the opposition to win. A smooth drive and racecraft is enough.
Look at it Ralf beat him fair & square in canada.
Look at his response int the last 2 races
(yes there was the white line incident, but after the canada pitstop loss, in the next two races MS made sure he came out ahead of ralf after the pitstops)
Scary, He's entering his prime, Now not only does he have the speed, but his mental game is reaching the same level.
Just have a look athe the last 15 odd races.
2000=- won 4 in a row to claim his championship.
2001= where is the competition now?
Its Prime time!

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by skylark68


Coordination is a function of hand/eye (and foot to a limited extent) coordination. In fact, sports specialists use this as a baromoter to determine if someone is falling off the pace. It can be tested quite easily.

In fact that, and peripheral vision, are instrumental in all sports, including racing. The ability of the eye to discern a curve allows a driver to make the necessary changes to go through it faster, or to avoid a slower car, or to avoid a wreck, etc.
...
It is generally this type of coordination that separates the men from the boys, so to speak. And as you get older, the eyes slow down and nothing we do, and no amounts of money, can bring that deterioration back.

Absolutely.

And by the way, i think this year the Ferrari is the best its been for MS, and MacLaren are having stupid problems, especially with MH's car. I don't think this year is such a great test of MH, But it sure is enjoyable for MS fans to sit back and watch him take it easy for once. So far its a golden year for MS, but I don't think he's driving better than last year accept at the starts, and now the car starts comparatively better.

[bkalb]

The point is well taken. I don't know that anyone can say Schumacher's abilities have fallen off yet--he is only 31 or 32, no matter how many years he's been racing--but he made a comment after Canada that he would never have made before: he backed off, instead of pursuing Ralf, because he wanted to protect his six points. That may simply be a sign of maturity, but it indicates that Michael will no longer, under any circumstances, go for broke. This is not a criticism, simply, as you suggest, something all great champions eventually go through.

Michael showed he can still turn it on in Austria, when he tried, and almost succeeded, in passing Montoya. That would have been a classic pass under any circumstances, and I believe he would have made it had Montoya not locked up and slide across his path. Of course, Michael and Ferrari are currently so good, and everyone else is tripping over himself making mistakes, that Michael doesn't have to prove himself very much at the moment. He just keeps winning.

Even before this question was posted, I was sorry to see Michael signing on for two more years, 2003-04. He is poised, by the end of 2002, to take first place in almost any are of F1 achievement you can name--he could conceivably tie Fangio's five championships. After that, what's his motivation (aside from lots of cash and the thrill of speed)? He really should move over after next season, no matter what happens.

[ebe]

If MS is past his prime, we can only know at the moment he retires.

Looking at the current performence, i would say he has never been better, specially looking at qualy performance. Probably he is now at the situation where speed, talent and experience add to a higher level.