220 replies to this topic

[aportinga]

I guess after X amount of years I have e draw the following conclusion in regard towards Michael Schumachers Challengers over his career and notably now......

1) Mika Hakkinen

- A great driver who was capable of developing a car but IMO needed a minor edge within that car to win - not much however. Certainly Mika was IMO Michaels greatest challenge of his career in F1.


2) J. Villeneuve

- A good driver who IMO needed a healthy machine in order to win races. Certainly not a driver who is capable of being the entire package as a Schumacher. I simply do not think he has the dedication nor the technical relationship with engineers to develop a car properly.

3) Juan Pablo Montoya

- Allot was expected of JPM even before he arrived in F1. His victories in CART belittled the efforts of Villeneuve in that series only a few years earlier. He came in much like JVi however..... On the hopes that HE would finally be the man to challenge Schumacher consistently.

- IMO JPM has had enough experience in a very good team for me to come up with the assumption that he is not the measure of a development driver that MS is. I think that Williams should have won the WDC this season and he should have led the way to the top of the podium.

- From what I have seem JPM has tended to morph into a Nigel Mansell sort of driver who takes risks which are entertaining and mostly rewarding. He is a driver who instills excitement for the viewers because we never know where he may pass and just how he will do it.

- Bottom line IMO is that he is an incredible talent who would be a thorn in MS's side in equal equipment but I do not think he is as good.

4) Kimi Raikkonen

- I don't think that neither KR nor DC has done well in terms of developing the McLaren. I believe that the resources are all there in order to put together a good car....but something just puzzles me in terms of why they are behind BMW who began development with BMW years after Mercedes and thereby have had more time to perfect the car and engine.

- Kimi (while he has age on his side), has to do more along the lines of brilliance behind the wheel. I do not think he is a conservative driver but a driver whose actions behind the wheel imitates his attitude behind a microphone..... And he'll need more then that to assume a status beyond that of Michael Schumacher.

So where does that leave us?

Will Alonso step up to the plate......

[Chris_Amon]

Hakkinen was clearly the greater challenge to MS, it is a shame that he is not driving anymore. His races at the Nurburgring in 1998 and in Spa in 2000 were just classic moments of a finest driver. So given his heritage, I think Raikkonen might contest his place in your analysis.

[Oho]

Ave !!!

While I am ready accept that Mika needed a small edge, I think that need had more to do with desire than ability. That is I tend to believe that Mika and Michael were very close, almost inseparable in their mix of skills but what eventually put Michael above Mika was that he wanted it more.

Michael I have come to understand is or at least was totally consumed with his role as an F1 pilot, Mika either could not, did not want to, or most likely bit of both, achieve this. After all Michael is still there and Mika is long gone with apparently no regrets.

Then of course desire and ambition are talent factors, thus Michael is more talented than Mika.

- Oho -

[karlth]

Originally posted by aportinga
IMO JPM has had enough experience in a very good team for me to come up with the assumption that he is not the measure of a development driver that MS is.

Considering the state of the FW25 when it ran for the first times in the hands of Montoya at Barcelona compared to the car it is now. I doubt Williams have any complaints about the development skills of their drivers. Especially as Williams decided at the beginning of the season to focus more on using Montoya and Ralf as test drivers. If I remember correctly then it was indeed Montoya who tested more than any other regular F1 driver during the season.

Also if you want to include development talent in your analysis I doubt Hakkinen would account for much.

[Oho]

Originally posted by karlth


Also if you want to include development talent in your analysis I doubt Hakkinen would account for much.

Ave !!!

Why is that. Mika had occasional problems setting up a car at race weekends under time pressure, that certainly was the case in 2000, but that hardly translates to lack of worth in development.

On the contrary I 've come to understand than when driving at fast consistent pace, Mika was like a metronome, producing from driver point of view almost identical laps, thus eliminating the single most significant source of uncertainty in the acquired test data.

Well then again what do we know, nothing really...

- Oho -

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Oho
Ave !!!

While I am ready accept that Mika needed a small edge, I think that need had more to do with desire than ability. That is I tend to believe that Mika and Michael were very close, almost inseparable in their mix of skills but what eventually put Michael above Mika was that he wanted it more.

Michael I have come to understand is or at least was totally consumed with his role as an F1 pilot, Mika either could not, did not want to, or most likely bit of both, achieve this. After all Michael is still there and Mika is long gone with apparently no regrets.

Then of course desire and ambition are talent factors, thus Michael is more talented than Mika.

- Oho -

I would agree with that. This season more than any other suprised me re: Schumacher. He had to 'come back' twice. After everything he has acheived, I am amazed he still has the level of desire to keep going.

Mika was quick, and has been debated over and over, probably more naturally gifted, and naturally quicker, than Schumacher when it comes down to just driving the car. but I think he lacked the same level of focus, or hunger, to keep coming back after devadstating problems, car failures, etc....

Also, McLaren is not the sort of team that looks to its drivers for leadership the way Ferrari look to Schumacher. Ron Dennis runs the team, and is the man to 'rally the troops'. I don't think he would really ever allow the drivers to take that role from him.

[aportinga]

Originally posted by karlth


Considering the state of the FW25 when it ran for the first times in the hands of Montoya at Barcelona compared to the car it is now. I doubt Williams have any complaints about the development skills of their drivers. Especially as Williams decided at the beginning of the season to focus more on using Montoya and Ralf as test drivers. If I remember correctly then it was indeed Montoya who tested more than any other regular F1 driver during the season.

Also if you want to include development talent in your analysis I doubt Hakkinen would account for much.

Well I look at what the benchmark would have done at Williams this season. That benchmark - whether people like him or not is clearly Schumacher. And I for think that he would have won the WDC in the Williams both this and last year had JPM or Kimi beem in the Ferrari.

So I guess I am eluding to the point that the development skills of JPM/KR/JVi & MH are not as high on the scale as Schumacher's..... Which would thus preclude them in this case as being a real threat.

[mikabest]

Originally posted by Oho
Ave !!!

While I am ready accept that Mika needed a small edge, I think that need had more to do with desire than ability. That is I tend to believe that Mika and Michael were very close, almost inseparable in their mix of skills but what eventually put Michael above Mika was that he wanted it more.

The more I stare at the lines of yours the more convinced I am that that's exactly how it was.

yours,

ever so biased MIKABEST

[Gemini]

Originally posted by aportinga




....but something just puzzles me in terms of why they are behind BMW who began development with BMW years after Mercedes and thereby have had more time to perfect the car and engine.

plus they have the services of the guy called Adrian Newey. One of two designers who created among them every single championship car since 1992...

[Fortymark]

Well I look at what the benchmark would have done at Williams this season. That benchmark - whether people like him or not is clearly Schumacher. And I for think that he would have won the WDC in the Williams both this and last year had JPM or Kimi beem in the Ferrari

Are you for real?! This and last years Williams.... Last years Williams was up to an full second slower than the Ferrari and when it was fast it broke down.
If Schumacher was running in JPM´s car he still would have gotten two DNF´s compaired to zero in his Ferrari. MS just won over Kimi, and if not JPM´s Williams had broke down at Suzuka they would have had the same points. And there´s no discussion whom had the best car over the entire season. Ferrari had the package.

[Williams]

Originally posted by Smooth


I would agree with that. This season more than any other suprised me re: Schumacher. He had to 'come back' twice. After everything he has acheived, I am amazed he still has the level of desire to keep going.

Mika was quick, and has been debated over and over, probably more naturally gifted, and naturally quicker, than Schumacher when it comes down to just driving the car. but I think he lacked the same level of focus, or hunger, to keep coming back after devadstating problems, car failures, etc....

Also, McLaren is not the sort of team that looks to its drivers for leadership the way Ferrari look to Schumacher. Ron Dennis runs the team, and is the man to 'rally the troops'. I don't think he would really ever allow the drivers to take that role from him.

Good post. The team has to be considered along with the driver and each team looks for different things from their drivers. The comment about McLaren vs. Ferrari is right on the money.

I think Williams would like to see a bit more leadership from their drivers in terms of technical direction and setup preferences, but at the end of the day Williams were able to field a competive package of which the drivers did not take full advantage.

I think Juan is credible challenger for Michael, but he is a bit torn between taking a strategic approach to the championship, and taking the battle to Michael on a wheel-to-wheel basis. I think if he applies the discipline to strike a balance and really starts to get under Michaels skin, that he will be able to develop the leverage to topple Michael from his perch. But both him and the team are really going to have to get their act together, and find a way to let Michael make all the mistakes.

Kimi worked with what he was given and I think he did a reasonable job of extracting what he could from the package. He made some mistakes, but so did every other challenger. I wouldn't expect Kimi, in the McLaren environment, to play a large role in pushing car development, other than providing the usual technical feedback and performing his testing duties.

Of course the interesting question will be what happens when Juan goes to McLaren. Points splitting between Juan and Kimi could be a real factor in handing Michael another championship.

One other "challenger" deserving of mention is Rubens. Although of course there is no way he could win the title at Ferrari, I think he showed that he could be a "pebble in Michael's shoe" as he put it, and I don't see any reason Rubens could not give Schumacher a very hard time from another team, given a competitive package. It's yet to be proven that he would be mentally strong enough to sustain a season-long challenge, but I don't doubt the speed is there.

[Elvis]

Damon Hill?

[aportinga]

Originally posted by Fortymark


Are you for real?! This and last years Williams.... Last years Williams was up to an full second slower than the Ferrari and when it was fast it broke down.
If Schumacher was running in JPM´s car he still would have gotten two DNF´s compaired to zero in his Ferrari. MS just won over Kimi, and if not JPM´s Williams had broke down at Suzuka they would have had the same points. And there´s no discussion whom had the best car over the entire season. Ferrari had the package.

Even so my response was in regards to developing the car.... In which case I would solidly assume that Schumacher would have developed that machine to in fact NOT be 1 second slower then the Ferrari. That is my entire point.

Look, I enjoy Berger, Alesi, Mansell, Alboreto and Prost far more then I do Schumacher. But none of those drivers really had any impact on the development of the Ferrari which would have enabled it to compete as a top team. The engineering itself (minus driver) in regard to a v-12 engine and a semi-automatic gearbox brought the team forward by 1990.

Yet Schumacher comes in and within a year is running at the top - in a car that was far slower the 1 second behind the Williams of Villeneuve.

I for one have never witnessed a driver to do such a thing. And while some of that success can be attributed to the folks around MS, allot of it IMO has to do with how he brings the team around him together. Senna was known for this you may recall.

[Davebo]

I find it astounding that no one has mentioned Schumacher's teammates - past and present. It just goes to show, whether true or false, the perception that his teammates are not allowed to challenge him.

I would say Rubens was a very close second at Ferrari this year. He had the measure of Schumacher a few times, but also most if not all the mechanical gremlins (few as they were - damn Ferrari!)

[Williams]

Originally posted by Davebo
I find it astounding that no one has mentioned Schumacher's teammates - past and present.

Look up four posts.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by aportinga


Even so my response was in regards to developing the car.... In which case I would solidly assume that Schumacher would have developed that machine to in fact NOT be 1 second slower then the Ferrari. That is my entire point.

Look, I enjoy Berger, Alesi, Mansell, Alboreto and Prost far more then I do Schumacher. But none of those drivers really had any impact on the development of the Ferrari which would have enabled it to compete as a top team. The engineering itself (minus driver) in regard to a v-12 engine and a semi-automatic gearbox brought the team forward by 1990.

Yet Schumacher comes in and within a year is running at the top - in a car that was far slower the 1 second behind the Williams of Villeneuve.

I for one have never witnessed a driver to do such a thing. And while some of that success can be attributed to the folks around MS, allot of it IMO has to do with how he brings the team around him together. Senna was known for this you may recall.

Sorry to say but Schumacher doesn´t have anything to do with the cars performance.
Neither Schumacher or any driver are engineers. They can give feedback and come with ideas on how to setup the car but it´s not their job to make 500 engineers look like their there for nothing..

[MONTOYASPEED]

Originally posted by aportinga
Well I look at what the benchmark would have done at Williams this season. That benchmark - whether people like him or not is clearly Schumacher. And I for think that he would have won the WDC in the Williams both this and last year had JPM or Kimi beem in the Ferrari.

[Williams]

Originally posted by aportinga


Even so my response was in regards to developing the car.... In which case I would solidly assume that Schumacher would have developed that machine to in fact NOT be 1 second slower then the Ferrari. That is my entire point.

Look, I enjoy Berger, Alesi, Mansell, Alboreto and Prost far more then I do Schumacher. But none of those drivers really had any impact on the development of the Ferrari which would have enabled it to compete as a top team. The engineering itself (minus driver) in regard to a v-12 engine and a semi-automatic gearbox brought the team forward by 1990.

Yet Schumacher comes in and within a year is running at the top - in a car that was far slower the 1 second behind the Williams of Villeneuve.

I for one have never witnessed a driver to do such a thing. And while some of that success can be attributed to the folks around MS, allot of it IMO has to do with how he brings the team around him together. Senna was known for this you may recall.

It's hard to separate the arrival of Schumacher from (a) the plans Jean Todt had at the time for moving Ferrari forward and (b) the arrival of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne. While Michael may provided a lot of leadership in terms of where the team should go technically (i.e. reliability) the engineers actually brought the team where it is today. In line with Fortymark's point, Michael's actual development of the the car would be limited to his superb testing skills and his eagerness to put in the necessary laps.

[Davebo]

Originally posted by Williams


Look up four posts.

Right you are - guily of skimming is me...

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by Davebo
I would say Rubens was a very close second at Ferrari this year. He had the measure of Schumacher a few times, but also most if not all the mechanical gremlins (few as they were - damn Ferrari!)

for the first time at Ferrari Rubinho proved this year that he was capable of dominating races and delivering wins for the team. He showed a new level of performance this year, which means next season the Ferrari team will start the year anticipating a similar level of performance from Rubinho like we saw at Suzuka. Ferrari will see him as a genuine championship contender from the start of the season. In 2002 there was some hollow victories given to Rubinho, some of them were "payback" victories, but in 2003 he earned them for himself.

[Jacaré]

Originally posted by aportinga


Look, I enjoy Berger, Alesi, Mansell, Alboreto and Prost far more then I do Schumacher. But none of those drivers really had any impact on the development of the Ferrari which would have enabled it to compete as a top team. The engineering itself (minus driver) in regard to a v-12 engine and a semi-automatic gearbox brought the team forward by 1990.

wasn't it Berger who help convince some top Honda engine people to come to Ferrari and develop the V10?

[sensible]

Originally posted by Williams


It's hard to separate the arrival of Schumacher from (a) the plans Jean Todt had at the time for moving Ferrari forward and (b) the arrival of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne. While Michael may provided a lot of leadership in terms of where the team should go technically (i.e. reliability) the engineers actually brought the team where it is today. In line with Fortymark's point, Michael's actual development of the the car would be limited to his superb testing skills and his eagerness to put in the necessary laps.

You're right, it's very hard to seperate them. But twice the group MS, RB, RB raised a car capable of one or two wins a year to a championship winning car. Whoever was ultimately responsible, that is a very impressive achievement. I think JTs part at Ferrari was to let them work without political interference.

An interesting year in all this was 96. Benetton continued with RB (&RB?) while MS went to ferrari. Benetton got 1 win, MS got 3. The next year RB went to ferrari and he got 6. I guess it confirms that it is the combination that is successful and none are as effective without the others. I guess this is why MS himself always emphasises the team.

[lukywill]

michael first challanged senna: in 93 it was super for him just to duel for 8th with senna

challengers of schumacher?
a poor but sympatic hill
good old jacques
ron's mika
and that's it: juan and kimi are from another planet.

[aportinga]

Originally posted by Williams


It's hard to separate the arrival of Schumacher from (a) the plans Jean Todt had at the time for moving Ferrari forward and (b) the arrival of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne. While Michael may provided a lot of leadership in terms of where the team should go technically (i.e. reliability) the engineers actually brought the team where it is today. In line with Fortymark's point, Michael's actual development of the the car would be limited to his superb testing skills and his eagerness to put in the necessary laps.

While I do not deny this, I hardly think the team would have captured as many titles with any other driver.

I think that even the most anti-Schuamcher fan could agree to that no?

And I have never discredited the efforts of the whole team altogether. In fact I think I already mentioned that.

But does that mean that the Williams and McLaren team are all the more worse?

Two questions....

1. If MS went to McLaren in 1996 or BMW do you believe Ferrari would be so dominate with any other driver in the field?

2. If the entire Ferrari crew were at McLaren would they be dominating over MS at Williams?

[Yelnats]

Originally posted by aportinga
I guess after X amount of years I have e draw the following conclusion in regard towards Michael Schumachers Challengers over his career and notably now......

1) Mika Hakkinen

- A great driver who was capable of developing a car but IMO needed a minor edge within that car to win - not much however. Certainly Mika was IMO Michaels greatest challenge of his career in F1.

The best indicator of Mika's raw talent was his early races as Senna's team-mate. His qualifying pace was enough to scare Senna who asked that his telemetry be kept private early in their relationship. Where Mika fell down relative to Schumacher was his lack of concentration on car development and setup. His massive talent and uncritical temperment allowed him to drive around problems that could be handled on a quaifying lap but wear down both tires and driver in a race situation.

2) Jacques Villeneuve

- A Good driver who IMO needed a healthy machine in order to win races. Certainly not a driver who is capable of being the entire package as a Schumacher. I simply do not think he has the dedication nor the technical relationship with engineers to develop a car properly.

I hesitate to question Jacques dedication, considering his accomplishments in earlier years. His long infertile seasons at BAR did even more to confirm his dedication, a less devoted driver would have taken the equal salary that he was offered elsewhere rather that sink a carreer into the untested BAR. Jacques was a Racer and excelled in pressure situations, a quality that endeared him to the Williams staff. His unhesitant challenges to Schumacher earlier in his carreer and his ultimate humiliation of Hill (though they remained on good terms) were proof of both his skill and dedication. But as a team leader in a newly formed BAR he was out of his depth being too much of an iconoclast and not helped by his best buddy as a totally inexperienced team manager.

3) Juan Pablo Montoya

- Allot was expected of JPM even before he arrived in F1. His victories in CART belittled the efforts of Villeneuve in that series only a few years earlier. He came in much like JVi however..... On the hopes that HE would finally be the man to challenge Schumacher consistently.

- IMO JPM has had enough experience in a very good team for me to come up with the assumption that he is not the measure of a development driver that MS is. I think that Williams should have won the WDC this season and he should have led the way to the top of the podium.

- From what I have seem JPM has tended to morph into a Nigel Mansell sort of driver who takes risks which are entertaining and mostly rewarding. He is a driver who instills excitement for the viewers because we never know where he may pass and just how he will do it.

- Bottom line IMO is that he is an incredible talent who would be a thorn in MS's side in equal equipment but I do not think he is as good.

It's difficult to become a WDC by driving on hormones. JPM's tallent is raw and powerfull but his 'JUST GO FOR IT ' philosophy tends to cost him dearly in passing situations. There are a few equally talented drivers who think a little clearer that Juan and probably would have won in JPM's car this year.

4) Kimi Raikkonen

- I don't think that neither KR nor DC has done well in terms of developing the McLaren. I believe that the resources are all there in order to put together a good car....but something just puzzles me in terms of why they are behind BMW who began development with BMW years after Mercedes and thereby have had more time to perfect the car and engine.

- Kimi (while he has age on his side), has to do more along the lines of brilliance behind the wheel. I do not think he is a conservative driver but a driver whose actions behind the wheel imitates his attitude behind a microphone..... And he'll need more then that to assume a status beyond that of Michael Schumacher.

Considering the driving talent and technical investment McLaren had dedicated to their new car development team I think it's unfair to lay the blame on the young Finn's shoulders for their failed MP18 car. It was Kimmy's steady pressure that put Michael in the almost embarassing situation that he experienced in the later half of the season. It's true that the new point system aided KR's efforts but he made the most of a third rank car and in a Williams I have little doubt that he would have come home first.

So where does that leave us?

Will Alonso step up to the plate......

Alonso is one of several reasons that I think Michael should consider retirement. Towards the end of the season even Ruben was showing Michael the way, I wonder how much more poorly he would have faired with Alonso as a team-mate.

[aportinga]

Originally posted by Williams


It's hard to separate the arrival of Schumacher from (a) the plans Jean Todt had at the time for moving Ferrari forward and (b) the arrival of Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne. While Michael may provided a lot of leadership in terms of where the team should go technically (i.e. reliability) the engineers actually brought the team where it is today. In line with Fortymark's point, Michael's actual development of the the car would be limited to his superb testing skills and his eagerness to put in the necessary laps.

While I do not deny this, I hardly think the team would have captured as many titles with any other driver.

I think that even the most anti-Schuamcher fan could agree to that no?

And I have never discredited the efforts of the whole team altogether. In fact I think I already mentioned that.

But does that mean that the Williams and McLaren team are all the more worse?

Two questions....

1. If MS went to McLaren in 1996 or BMW do you believe Ferrari would be so dominate with any other driver in the field?

2. If the entire Ferrari crew were at McLaren would they be dominating over MS at Williams?

[lukywill]

flavio does not have the chance in renault (alonso) to do the same that he did with benetton and schumacher.

as for luca and ferrari: in the seventies he put there lauda with a 'slow' regazzoni beside him. lauda's accident in nurburgring 76 worried ferrari and reutemann was there in 77 to replace a weak lauda (of course lauda made a comeback).

rubens chances for the championship are after michael's. or in case of drama.

if ms would go to williams he would not have a chance to be number one for so many years.
but at mclaren he would have the same chance as he did at ferrari

[michaelab]

Originally posted by Elvis
Damon Hill?

I still think that Barrichello is seriously underrated by many people. He could yet be a "problem" for Michael. Of the current drivers I like Montoya more than Kimi (and I think he has the edge on raw talent too) but I think Kimi is far better in the mental aspects of the sport. I don't see him cracking under pressure and doing silly things the way that Montoya has done and IMO that will mean that Kimi will be the greater challenger for Michael in the near future.

I still think though that Alonso is the most likely current driver to take over Michael's crown as the best driver on the grid. Still so young he's definitely got a couple of WDCs in him at least provided he's in the right team. I just hope with the new engine and Gascoyne's departure that the '04 Renault is not a turkey because otherwise I could see Alonso having a bad season that could knock him back a step or two. Alonso winning the WDC in a Ferrari would suit me nicely

Michael.

[Williams]

Originally posted by aportinga


While I do not deny this, I hardly think the team would have captured as many titles with any other driver.

I think that even the most anti-Schuamcher fan could agree to that no?

And I have never discredited the efforts of the whole team altogether. In fact I think I already mentioned that.

But does that mean that the Williams and McLaren team are all the more worse?

Two questions....

1. If MS went to McLaren in 1996 or BMW do you believe Ferrari would be so dominate with any other driver in the field?

2. If the entire Ferrari crew were at McLaren would they be dominating over MS at Williams?

I agree that Michael had a lot to do with the success of the team, via his contribution as race driver, more than his contribution as a test driver. Michael has also contributed by example: his incredibly sharp focus and dedication forces the rest of the team to up it's game.

On your question 1 and 2, the answer is no and no. I think it is a mistake to try to separate out a single factor as being the factor that makes Ferrari successful. It's combination of Michael's talent, motivation and sponsor-pulling power, the smarts of Todt, Brawn and Byrne, the determination of di Montezemolo and the deep pockets of Ferrari and it's sponsors that make the team so strong. Taking away any of these factors would diminish the competitiveness of the package as a whole.

[Williams]

Originally posted by sensible


You're right, it's very hard to seperate them. But twice the group MS, RB, RB raised a car capable of one or two wins a year to a championship winning car. Whoever was ultimately responsible, that is a very impressive achievement. I think JTs part at Ferrari was to let them work without political interference.

An interesting year in all this was 96. Benetton continued with RB (&RB?) while MS went to ferrari. Benetton got 1 win, MS got 3. The next year RB went to ferrari and he got 6. I guess it confirms that it is the combination that is successful and none are as effective without the others. I guess this is why MS himself always emphasises the team.

Agreed.

[MONTOYASPEED]

Originally posted by aportinga
Two questions....

1. If MS went to McLaren in 1996 or BMW do you believe Ferrari would be so dominate with any other driver in the field?

2. If the entire Ferrari crew were at McLaren would they be dominating over MS at Williams?

If you had a fanny, would you be aportinga?



Ifs do not exist.

[michaelab]

Originally posted by Williams
I think it is a mistake to try to separate out a single factor as being the factor that makes Ferrari successful.

Perhaps - but it could easily be a single factor missing that would make them unsuccessful.

IMO if Michael hadn't been at Ferrari but everything else was the same (DiMontezemolo, Todt, Brawn, Byrne and Martinelli) they would never have been anything like as dominant. Perhaps still hovering around 3rd place in the WCC. Look at what happened when Michael left Benneton - it completely fell apart.

IMO Michael is the one single factor that rescued Ferrari from endless years of political infighting and empire building into once again an all conquering super team.

Michael.

[Sam Ts]

Hi, Im a newbie here, so pl be gentle on me.

I wanted to add a few points on this thread, and a good one it is

1. MH vs MS, both were similar in talent and fast, yet MH lost motivation. Reasons possibly are that life threatening accident where he almost died, and the risks involved in those circumstances with a new baby which changes everything. Compare this with MS, who went from success to the most passionate name in motor sport in deep failure and worked hard with them with a psychological boost from every miniature success they had till the big crown, and his do or die attitude endeavored them to embrace him more as their own leading to a vicious cycle of success and hunger. When you have an environment where people like you a lot and strive to work for you, you tend to reply in the same manner, that’s the reason for MS’s thirst for victories and success. He envisioned either by serendipity or extremely good foresight, the future of Ferrari in1996.

2. One pivotal reason for MS winning WDC this year was the splitting points of Michelin runners among themselves, compared to his dominating when BS is good, than anyone else. His experience to nurse the car in difficult circumstances played a big role, esp Canada, monza and indy where he knew what to do with impending problems. That’s where his tactical mind with experience shown over others. It doesn’t mean he’s the fastest, but the wisest under the circumstances, compared to kimi - consistently fast, JPM – wild and fast, and Alonso – wild. My happiness lies in the fact that F1 racing has a bright future in that there are so many bright new stars and none is going to be as dominant as MS (which I do not condone), making way for exciting multilevel battles in the future.

3. In terms of successors / challengers, MS WILL NOT FADE, he has that extra something to pull out anywhere, and he’s smart to realize that when its beyond his ability to be on top with an extremely dominant opponent, he will walk away. So its too early to pinpoint someone, but give it 2 years, you’ll see the next one, maybe not as successful, nevertheless entertaining

Ok, Time for me to duck
Sam Ts

[Rene]

I think this analysis is short of a couple of drivers....why do so many people ignore 1991-1993 Schumachers formative years...he faced:

Alain Prost - Prost was an amazingly skilled driver, with a tonne of experience at this point, drove far more with his head than with his heart, but still had a level of aggression at this point of his career that only Schumacher seems to manage (see MS's move on Ralf in Japan) from this current breed of drivers.

Nigel Mansell - Mansell's one and only WDC came as MS entered his second year. Mansell was a formidable racer, who wore his heart on his sleeve.

Ayrton Senna - Perhaps was at his peak in terms of performance during MS's early years. Senna was starting to drive and less and less with his heart, and more with his head. All the while driving with an agression which at times was frightening.

I think any analysis of the drivers MS faced which leaves off these three, misses what really made MS what he is today. I think if you look at the way MS drives today, you will see a bit of all three of the above drivers....MS may not drive with outright skill of Prost, the flair of Mansell, or the pure ballet that Senna was, but he is pretty darn close to all three in all of these area's. In fact if I wanted to make the best driver possible, I would have 2 parts Prost, 1 part Mansell, amd 2 part Senna....and guess what you get?! Schumacher

I also think to not add Damon Hill to the list of MS challengers is a gross oversight....

[aportinga]

Originally posted by MONTOYASPEED


If you had a fanny, would you be aportinga?



Ifs do not exist.

I am really interested in your comments Mr. MONTYSPEED. Would you happen to have some sort of news letter that I may be able to subscribe to so as to learn more of your infinite wisdom and other thoughts?

[Marlowe]

IMO if Michael hadn't been at Ferrari but everything else was the same (DiMontezemolo, Todt, Brawn, Byrne and Martinelli) they would never have been anything like as dominant. Perhaps still hovering around 3rd place in the WCC. Look at what happened when Michael left Benneton - it completely fell apart.

IMO Michael is the one single factor that rescued Ferrari from endless years of political infighting and empire building into once again an all conquering super team.

Michael,

I think Hakkinen would do equally well in that Ferrari.

You forget Schumacher had the key players of the Benetton team with him late in the 97 season. It is not a suprise that Benetton completely fell apart after Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne left for Ferrari.

[aportinga]

Originally posted by Rene
I think this analysis is short of a couple of drivers....why do so many people ignore 1991-1993 Schumachers formative years...he faced:

Alain Prost - Prost was an amazingly skilled driver, with a tonne of experience at this point, drove far more with his head than with his heart, but still had a level of aggression at this point of his career that only Schumacher seems to manage (see MS's move on Ralf in Japan) from this current breed of drivers.

Nigel Mansell - Mansell's one and only WDC came as MS entered his second year. Mansell was a formidable racer, who wore his heart on his sleeve.

Ayrton Senna - Perhaps was at his peak in terms of performance during MS's early years. Senna was starting to drive and less and less with his heart, and more with his head. All the while driving with an agression which at times was frightening.

I think any analysis of the drivers MS faced which leaves off these three, misses what really made MS what he is today. I think if you look at the way MS drives today, you will see a bit of all three of the above drivers....MS may not drive with outright skill of Prost, the flair of Mansell, or the pure ballet that Senna was, but he is pretty darn close to all three in all of these area's. In fact if I wanted to make the best driver possible, I would have 2 parts Prost, 1 part Mansell, amd 2 part Senna....and guess what you get?! Schumacher

I also think to not add Damon Hill to the list of MS challengers is a gross oversight....

While I agree that MS made his name while doing well against these drivers, my analysis does not include them because IMO he simply was not in a top team. He performed as such which was incredible and the reason why he made such a great name.

As to your remarks regarding Hill.... When did Hill do so well in a similar position? His 1994 campaign was a result of the FIA screwing MS in the points with a race ban.....

[Rene]

Originally posted by aportinga
As to your remarks regarding Hill.... When did Hill do so well in a similar position? His 1994 campaign was a result of the FIA screwing MS in the points with a race ban.....

1996?!?!

He had no more a car advantage than Mika had in 1998, yet you mention Mika and not Hill...

[JoeUser]

Originally posted by Rene
I think this analysis is short of a couple of drivers....why do so many people ignore 1991-1993 Schumachers formative years...he faced:

Alain Prost - Prost was an amazingly skilled driver, with a tonne of experience at this point, drove far more with his head than with his heart, but still had a level of aggression at this point of his career that only Schumacher seems to manage (see MS's move on Ralf in Japan) from this current breed of drivers.

Nigel Mansell - Mansell's one and only WDC came as MS entered his second year. Mansell was a formidable racer, who wore his heart on his sleeve.

Ayrton Senna - Perhaps was at his peak in terms of performance during MS's early years. Senna was starting to drive and less and less with his heart, and more with his head. All the while driving with an agression which at times was frightening.

I think any analysis of the drivers MS faced which leaves off these three, misses what really made MS what he is today. I think if you look at the way MS drives today, you will see a bit of all three of the above drivers....MS may not drive with outright skill of Prost, the flair of Mansell, or the pure ballet that Senna was, but he is pretty darn close to all three in all of these area's. In fact if I wanted to make the best driver possible, I would have 2 parts Prost, 1 part Mansell, amd 2 part Senna....and guess what you get?! Schumacher

Probably the most important races of his career were those against these drivers.

[michaelab]

Originally posted by Rene


1996?!?!

He had no more a car advantage than Mika had in 1998, yet you mention Mika and not Hill...

He had a massive car advantage compared to Schumacher piece of cr@p 1996 Ferrari! Schumacher was not a WDC contender in 1996 so he doesn't really count as a Schumacher challenger in that sense.

IMO Hill was very luck that the best driver on the grid (Schumacher) was out of contention in a useless Ferrari and his teammate was an F1 rookie learning the ropes and the Williams was so superior to anything else out there. Even so, Villeneuve still took it down to the wire in Suzuka.

Michael.

[aportinga]

I disagree.... You should relax btw.

[Rene]

Originally posted by aportinga
I disagree.... You should relax btw.

Bah!

This is how I relax BTW

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Marlowe



Michael,

I think Hakkinen would do equally well in that Ferrari.

You forget Schumacher had the key players of the Benetton team with him late in the 97 season. It is not a suprise that Benetton completely fell apart after Schumacher, Brawn and Byrne left for Ferrari.

The only thing different about Benetton in 1996 was the departure of Schumacher. The rest of the team was intact. They walked the championships with ease in 1995, yet struggled to even win a race in 1996.

I am not saying MS was the only reason, but it was a big part of it.

[Smooth]

Originally posted by Rene


1996?!?!

He had no more a car advantage than Mika had in 1998, yet you mention Mika and not Hill...

Rene, I think you are way off base here. Hill had a much, much larger car advantage over MS in 1996 than Mika did 1998.

[Simioni]

Originally posted by Jacaré

for the first time at Ferrari Rubinho proved this year that he was capable of dominating races and delivering wins for the team. He showed a new level of performance this year, which means next season the Ferrari team will start the year anticipating a similar level of performance from Rubinho like we saw at Suzuka. Ferrari will see him as a genuine championship contender from the start of the season. In 2002 there was some hollow victories given to Rubinho, some of them were "payback" victories, but in 2003 he earned them for himself.

I think Rubens has been on that level since last year already, and I´d say his performances this year (and MS' for that matter) have made clear that at least a couple of his supposedly "payback" victories last year werent really so given as they were made out to be.

[Marlowe]

Smooth,

I agree, Schumacher was and still remains a big part of Ferrari's success. That being said, 1996 was the year of the Williams. Newey's design combined with the performance of Hill and Villeneuve obliterated the competition. There is no way that Benetton could have competed with Williams even if Schumacher and co. had remained with Benetton.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by Smooth


The only thing different about Benetton in 1996 was the departure of Schumacher. The rest of the team was intact. They walked the championships with ease in 1995, yet struggled to even win a race in 1996.

I am not saying MS was the only reason, but it was a big part of it.

In -96 they didn´t have the same drivers policy as in -95 with focus on one driver, and F1 is constant improvement. Look at McLaren, they had an race winning car in some of the races in 2001 but was dead slow in 2002.
Williams did an even better car in -96 than they had in -95. Ferrari too made huge improvements.
New engine concept and an new radical gearbox. And later an "B" version introduced at Canada.
McLaren had started to get better too.
If you followed the -96 season you could see the pace of the Ferrari getting better and better. Benetton the other way round. And this continued to 2001 to it´s really bottom mark.
Look what Renault did in 2 years time from dead slow in -01 to have the race winning pace in -03(in some races).

[aportinga]

Bottom line with me is that I have been hoping to see another driver challenge for the WDC and thereby take the fight to MS.... Regardless if one likes or dis-likes the guy makes no difference as adding competition at the top would overall make for a better series.

There was allot of hype when Villeneuve came over from CART. A great deal of high expectations were laid upon his shoulders as a result of the death of Ayrton Senna which ultimately left the sport void of any major competition for Schumacher. This was of course made even worse when we recall the many great battles in the years prior which took place between Senna, Prost, Patrese, Mansell and Berger.

While Villeneuve impressed he did so in a great car - one far better then the rest of the field. But we have to remember that he did not do so hot in 1998 and has done even worse at BAR. That in itself leaves me to believe that he was simply never up to the hype which people wanted him to live up to.

JPM is really no different IMO..... Came from CART and did so with the same hopes that he would be able to challenge MS..... And after a handful of years I would say no.

Kimi came into the series with a ton of ridicule spurred on from a lack of racing background. He proved himself IMO and still may have more to show us..... But this thread is about MS and his competition and we do not have much time for Kimi and McLaren to get their act together in order to truly analyze this one.

Mika - Yes.... That I agree on.

[Fortymark]

Originally posted by aportinga
Bottom line with me is that I have been hoping to see another driver challenge for the WDC and thereby take the fight to MS.... Regardless if one likes or dis-likes the guy makes no difference as adding competition at the top would overall make for a better series.

There was allot of hype when Villeneuve came over from CART. A great deal of high expectations were laid upon his shoulders as a result of the death of Ayrton Senna which ultimately left the sport void of any major competition for Schumacher. This was of course made even worse when we recall the many great battles in the years prior which took place between Senna, Prost, Patrese, Mansell and Berger.

While Villeneuve impressed he did so in a great car - one far better then the rest of the field. But we have to remember that he did not do so hot in 1998 and has done even worse at BAR. That in itself leaves me to believe that he was simply never up to the hype which people wanted him to live up to.

JPM is really no different IMO..... Came from CART and did so with the same hopes that he would be able to challenge MS..... And after a handful of years I would say no.

Kimi came into the series with a ton of ridicule spurred on from a lack of racing background. He proved himself IMO and still may have more to show us..... But this thread is about MS and his competition and we do not have much time for Kimi and McLaren to get their act together in order to truly analyze this one.

Mika - Yes.... That I agree on.

No offence Aportinga but did you follow the races in -03?!
You write that you hoped to see another driver challenge for the WDC, and here we have two drivers taking it almost to the final race(Kimi did). Montoya lead the race clearly in Suzuka and Ralf later put in the fastest lap. I´m 100% sure JPM would have won the race! In such case JPM and MS would have the same points!! But MS would have won because of more wins..
And if we look at the season we can clearly see that the Ferrari/bridgestone package was better than Williams.

[Taxi]

speed-

Mika - 9,5
Michael-9.3
Kimi-9
Jacques- 8.5
Juan- 8.7
Damon.- 8.8

Set up talent
Michael- 9.5
Mika- 8.3
Kimi-7.5
Jacques- 8
Damon- 9

Fighting skills

Michael- 9.5
JUan- 9.5
Kimi- 9
Jacques-9
Mika- 8.5
Damon- 7

Strategy
Michael- 10
Mika- 9
Damon- 8.8
Kimi- 9
Jacques- 8
Juan- 7.5