220 replies to this topic

[MortenF1]

Quote

Originally posted by aportinga


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?

Nope, cause that driver wouldn't have got Todt, Byrne and Brawn with him. These four people, together with de Montezemelo, ARE Ferrari.

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by Williams


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.

"Kimi worked with what he was given and I think he did a reasonable job of extracting what he could from the package."

Understatement of the year. Seems clear that you don't care so much for Kimi, but rather JPM. Nothing wrong with that, just that it shows in the length of your analysis in each case and the emphasis. Reasonable... heh... Then I guess what MS extracted from his 97 Ferrari was less than that, perhaps "mediocre"?

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by aportinga
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.

KR from the 17 in 02 to 17D in 03. You only see what you want to see my friend. For some reason the MS mythology holds these "facts" but in case of any other driver they're overlooked or the credit is given to someone else.

[JoeUser]

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by michaelab

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.

Hmm, yes. But similarly MS had a massive car advantage over Kimi in 2003. Yet MS wasn't a title contender in 96 even though the guys with the technological advantage were only DH and JV, while KR was a title contender against MS. Sooo.... hmmm.... ha!

[fingers]

Quote

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.


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......

Its only really JPM's personality that is challenging Schumacher he is likely to say far more than he will actually do in challenging him. Schumi's real challengers are the one's who avoid crashing if they're gonna lose out and drive hard but fair.

[HSJ]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


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.

Yeah it's strange how aportinga's post indicate he hasn't actually watched 03 or did not understand what he saw. He speaks like MS wasn't challenged, when he was almost beaten! MS had a lower average finishing position than both KR (1st) and JPM (2nd), and thus he only won due to having better mechanical reliability on his car. And yet none of that matters I guess. Unbelievable.

[aportinga]

Quote

Originally posted by HSJ


KR from the 17 in 02 to 17D in 03. You only see what you want to see my friend. For some reason the MS mythology holds these "facts" but in case of any other driver they're overlooked or the credit is given to someone else.

Part of the overall package in a driver is the ability to bring a team together.... I have yet too see that quality in Kimi. I did note it in Mika however. Perhaps McLaren were to obtain a Woobins and focus their efforts on Kimi alone we would see that. But in the same case that would be cause for the team to change it's methodology.

I think In the case of Schumacher it was the other way around. Teams were automatically impressed with what he accomplished in 1993 and thus respected him. The result was a team(s) which worked harder for him - something which was typical in the case of Senna and noted by members of Sennas team. In fact IMO Schumacher's dominance changed the methodology of F1 quite a bit.

Instead of having 2 great drivers on one given team, a team such as Ferrari now employees one great driver with a second which acts to support him. Therfore you have an entire team behind one driver with the other acting as a sort of insurance policy.... It's worked quite well so far.

[aportinga]

Quote

Originally posted by HSJ
Yeah it's strange how aportinga's post indicate he hasn't actually watched 03 or did not understand what he saw. He speaks like MS wasn't challenged, when he was almost beaten! MS had a lower average finishing position than both KR (1st) and JPM (2nd), and thus he only won due to having better mechanical reliability on his car. And yet none of that matters I guess. Unbelievable.

What the hell are you talking about?

Please quote my on your BS next time.

[aportinga]

You think MS won only because of his car?

And I am well aware of the point differential......

[JoeUser]

Quote

Originally posted by HSJ
Yeah it's strange how aportinga's post indicate he hasn't actually watched 03 or did not understand what he saw. He speaks like MS wasn't challenged, when he was almost beaten! MS had a lower average finishing position than both KR (1st) and JPM (2nd), and thus he only won due to having better mechanical reliability on his car. And yet none of that matters I guess. Unbelievable.

Actually; he won BECAUSE HE WON SIX RACES.

HELLO?

How many races did Kimi the all-powerfull MP17D car developer win?

What is unbelievable is how every single thing you post distills into: MS = bad, Kimi = good.

[ZZMS]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


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..

In fact MS is certified mechanic from what I know... Unlike any other driver... So he in fact CAN have some insight and can look after the car more carefully

[Williams]

Quote

Originally posted by HSJ


"Kimi worked with what he was given and I think he did a reasonable job of extracting what he could from the package."

Understatement of the year. Seems clear that you don't care so much for Kimi, but rather JPM. Nothing wrong with that, just that it shows in the length of your analysis in each case and the emphasis.

So basically anyone that posts anything at even a slight variance with the your "Kimi is God" logic is doing so because they are biased ?

[Amir_S]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


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).

Bla bla bla. Bottom line, Benetton had the same team personel, the same engine and the same of everything in 1996. In 1995 they won both championships and 11 races. In 1996 they won nothing. Trying to do rethorical donoughts and acrobatics to try to explain away those undisputed facts is as smart as trying to ram your head into a brickwall thinking if you just push hard enough you'll get through. You won't. You'll end up with a crack in your head.

[Marlowe]

Quote

Originally posted by ZZMS


In fact MS is certified mechanic from what I know... Unlike any other driver... So he in fact CAN have some insight and can look after the car more carefully

I heard MS can do CFD calculations in his head.

[Teez]

Quote

Originally posted by HSJ

Hmm, yes. But similarly MS had a massive car advantage over Kimi in 2003. Yet MS wasn't a title contender in 96 even though the guys with the technological advantage were only DH and JV,

First of all, the '96 Williams was miles ahead of the Ferrari at every track, unlike the case of 2003 where this wasn't apparent. Second of all, and despite the first point, Schumacher still managed to win three (3) races. Kimi has done nothing similar.

Quote

while KR was a title contender against MS. Sooo.... hmmm.... ha!

Title contender? LMAO! Points-wise, yes. He needed to win and have Michael out of the points. So yes, mathematically Kimi was a title contender, but only due to the ridiculous points system we have this year. Kimi just cruised around for points and let the math work in his favor. The only way Kimi was going to win the 2003 WDC was through the misfortune of others; not on merit.

[Marlowe]

Quote

Originally posted by Amir_S


Bla bla bla. Bottom line, Benetton had the same team personel, the same engine and the same of everything in 1996. In 1995 they won both championships and 11 races. In 1996 they won nothing. Trying to do rethorical donoughts and acrobatics to try to explain away those undisputed facts is as smart as trying to ram your head into a brickwall thinking if you just push hard enough you'll get through. You won't. You'll end up with a crack in your head.

If MS had remained with Benetton in 96. We would probably have seen a result very similar to 98: MS losing to a dominant Newy designed vehicle.

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by ZZMS
In fact MS is certified mechanic from what I know... Unlike any other driver... So he in fact CAN have some insight and can look after the car more carefully

Michael was Ralf's race mechanic early in Ralf's career.

[Rene]

Quote

Originally posted by Smooth
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.

I don't think the gap is so big that one would just ignore Damon Hill.

1996 - Williams - Australia - Qualifies 0.518 seconds ahead of their closest rival (Irvine)
1998 - Mclaren - Australia - Qualifies 0.757 seconds ahead of their clostest rival (Schumacher)

Damon Hill 7 Wins, Mika 8 wins....

Williams 1996 6 1-2 finishes
Mclaren 1998 5 1-2 finishes

So what it comes down to, is ignore Hill because you don't like him, and beat the stuffing out of MS that year...but praise Mika in a car almost as good, simply because he is likable

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by Marlowe
If MS had remained with Benetton in 96. We would probably have seen a result very similar to 98: MS losing to a dominant Newy designed vehicle.

1998 was heavily influenced by a tire war, and Michael had just beaten Damon Hill in Newey cars two years running with Byrne's Benettons. Newey found a 'loop-hole' in the new cockpit regulations that Byrne missed, but Michael certainly could have given Williams a better run for their money with Benetton in 1996 than he did with Ferrari. 1997 too. Rory designed the B197, and he often lammented that he had left a better car at Benetton to struggle trying to make Barnard's inferior F310b try to work during the 1997 season. The F300 of 1998 was actually a pretty decent car in many ways, and at the least it was highly adjustable, as shown by the wheelbase extension during the season. Unfortunately, the early season was handed over to McLaren on a platter because of a mistake made by Ferrari/Goodyear in developing an aerodynamic front tire instead of one with a broad contact patch. Learned that lesson the hard way. Twice!

[aportinga]

Quote

Originally posted by Williams


So basically anyone that posts anything at even a slight variance with the your "Kimi is God" logic is doing so because they are biased ?

No sheet.... Hey I do not like MS but at the very least I can take an objective stance on his driving ability.

This crap of people getting into a fit when someone says anything bad about thier favorite driver is really getting old.

IMO they all suck and only Sarah Fisher is good enough to be called the greatest.

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene


I don't think the gap is so big that one would just ignore Damon Hill.

1996 - Williams - Australia - Qualifies 0.518 seconds ahead of their closest rival (Irvine)
1998 - Mclaren - Australia - Qualifies 0.757 seconds ahead of their clostest rival (Schumacher)

Damon Hill 7 Wins, Mika 8 wins....

Williams 1996 6 1-2 finishes
Mclaren 1998 5 1-2 finishes

So what it comes down to, is ignore Hill because you don't like him, and beat the stuffing out of MS that year...but praise Mika in a car almost as good, simply because he is likable

In 1996, Michael had 5 mechanical DNFs, 6 if you count Hungary, where he was classified as a 9th place finisher. In 1998, Michael had 2 mechanical DNFs. This is certainly a factor in comparing how much of fight Ferrari could give Williams in 1996. Eddie had even more DNFs than Michael in 1996.

[Rene]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd


In 1996, Michael had 5 mechanical DNFs, 6 if you count Hungary, where he was classified as a 9th place finisher. In 1998, Michael had 2 mechanical DNFs. This is certainly a factor in comparing how much of fight Ferrari could give Williams in 1996. Eddie had even more DNFs than Michael in 1996.

I don't disagree, but how does that make Damon less of a competitor to MS than Mika? Especially as they competed from 1993 onwards...

[aportinga]

[Piif]

Quote

Originally posted by Elvis
Damon Hill?

Who?

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene
I don't disagree, but how does that make Damon less of a competitor to MS than Mika? Especially as they competed from 1993 onwards...

Mika beat Michael in a year that MS had something approximating a competitive car. Damon beat Michael in a year that MS had a slow, difficult, grenade. The previous year, MS car was merely slower and more difficult to drive than the Williams, so Michael beat him with 3 rounds to go. Compare Mika's 2000 to Damon's 1995, and then consider that Damon had equipment advantages then that Mika could only dream of in 2000. Mika's 1999 wasn't impressive, although he did step up in Suzuka, but Damon only won in the vacuum created by MS not having a reliable car and Damon having a rookie teammate.

[Rene]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd


Mika beat Michael in a year that MS had something approximating a competitive car. Damon beat Michael in a year that MS had a slow, difficult, grenade. The previous year, MS car was merely slower and more difficult to drive than the Williams, so Michael beat him with 3 rounds to go. Compare Mika's 2000 to Damon's 1995, and then consider that Damon had equipment advantages then that Mika could only dream of in 2000. Mika's 1999 wasn't impressive, although he did step up in Suzuka, but Damon only won in the vacuum created by MS not having a reliable car and Damon having a rookie teammate.

All that being said, do you still not think its worth examining him as a competitor? When Prost dominated Senna in 1993, we wouldn't dream of not mentioning them as competitors despite the technological advantage which Prost enjoyed....or when Mansell had the better car over Prost and Senna....

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Hill at all, and have never in my life even cheered for him...but to leave him off a list of MS competitors just seems disingenuous :

[aportinga]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene


All that being said, do you still not think its worth examining him as a competitor? When Prost dominated Senna in 1993, we wouldn't dream of not mentioning them as competitors despite the technological advantage which Prost enjoyed....or when Mansell had the better car over Prost and Senna....

Don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of Hill at all, and have never in my life even cheered for him...but to leave him off a list of MS competitors just seems disingenuous :

Yes but Prost competed with Senna for years.....

Schumacher raced against Hill in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 with really only 1994 being a close season between the two. Jesus how many close seasons did Senna/Mansell/Prost have???

[Ricardo F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd
The previous year, MS car was merely slower and more difficult to drive than the Williams,

No, Michael was driving an impressive perfectly set up (for him) quick Benetton. Was it an ideal car? Absolutely not. Would Michael have preferred a perfectly balanced car? Undeniably. But as with 1994 the Benetton was a better car in race trim - for Michael especially.

[JoeUser]

Quote

Originally posted by Rene
So what it comes down to, is ignore Hill because you don't like him, and beat the stuffing out of MS that year...but praise Mika in a car almost as good, simply because he is likable

Yeah, that 1996 battle between Hill and Schumacher was titanic. Bravo to Hill for taking it to Schumacher in 96!!

[Smooth]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


No, Michael was driving an impressive perfectly set up (for him) quick Benetton. Was it an ideal car? Absolutely not. Would Michael have preferred a perfectly balanced car? Undeniably. But as with 1994 the Benetton was a better car in race trim - for Michael especially.

Too bad Berger and Alesi thought differently when they had a go in it. But what do they know?

[aportinga]

Quote

Originally posted by aportinga


Yes but Prost competed with Senna for years.....

Schumacher raced against Hill in 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996 with really only 1994 being a close season between the two. Jesus how many close seasons did Senna/Mansell/Prost have???

Edit mode:

And since 1994 was totally fixed in DH's favor we can call that charity as well.

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


No, Michael was driving an impressive perfectly set up (for him) quick Benetton.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. MS accepted its nervousness because they couldn't figure out a way to fix it. As he and his team at Ferrari got better at working together by the end of 1999, a Michael Schumacher car became an incredibly stable and neutral car indeed. The B195 wanted to spin because of a lack of balance. Not because Michael wanted to spend all race chasing the car. The difference between Michael and the others is that he can drive an unstable car, not that he wants to.

[aportinga]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd


You really have no idea what you are talking about. MS accepted its nervousness because they couldn't figure out a way to fix it. As he and his team at Ferrari got better at working together by the end of 1999, a Michael Schumacher car became an incredibly stable and neutral car indeed. The B195 wanted to spin because of a lack of balance. Not because Michael wanted to spend all race chasing the car. The difference between Michael and the others is that he can drive an unstable car, not that he wants to.

Indeed and excellent point

[Ricardo F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd


You really have no idea what you are talking about. MS accepted its nervousness because they couldn't figure out a way to fix it. As he and his team at Ferrari got better at working together by the end of 1999, a Michael Schumacher car became an incredibly stable and neutral car indeed. The B195 wanted to spin because of a lack of balance. Not because Michael wanted to spend all race chasing the car. The difference between Michael and the others is that he can drive an unstable car, not that he wants to.

And you really can't read can you. Want to go back and try again? Let me help you :

"Was it an ideal car? Absolutely not. Would Michael have preferred a perfectly balanced car? Undeniably."


The Benetton team and Michael couldn't figure out a way to fix their issues. We totally agree. The only way they could make the car quick was to make it nervous. Michael could deal with that so they went that route and made it as suitable to him as they could. Berger and Alesi (Smooth) had totally different reactions to the car because it was completely nervous and while being so not tuned to their styles.

You're so defensive Todd it's laughable.

[karlth]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd
The B195 wanted to spin because of a lack of balance. Not because Michael wanted to spend all race chasing the car. The difference between Michael and the others is that he can drive an unstable car, not that he wants to.

Schumacher managed a lucky win in the first race of the 1995 season racing a highly unstable B195, then was hopelessly off the pace in the next race before crashing twice in the third one.

Didn't look too good for Michael then but .....

Salvation appeared in the form of Michael's teammate "Benetton Gimp" Johnny Herbert who's setup changes tamed the B195 beast and turned it into a car that Schumacher could finally drive without falling off the road.

True story.

[karlth]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
Berger and Alesi (Smooth) had totally different reactions to the car because it was completely nervous and while being so not tuned to their styles.

Alesi had absolutely no complaints about driving the B195.

It was just Berger who didn't like it.

[Smooth]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


And you really can't read can you. Want to go back and try again? Let me help you :

"Was it an ideal car? Absolutely not. Would Michael have preferred a perfectly balanced car? Undeniably."


The Benetton team and Michael couldn't figure out a way to fix their issues. We totally agree. The only way they could make the car quick was to make it nervous. Michael could deal with that so they went that route and made it as suitable to him as they could. Berger and Alesi (Smooth) had totally different reactions to the car because it was completely nervous and while being so not tuned to their styles.

You're so defensive Todd it's laughable.

You still make no sense. MS' style did not dictate a nervous car, so drop the whole 'It was setup perfect for him' nonsense. He was able to drive around the flaws in the car, others were not. Every driver has a chance to set the car up.

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by karlth
Schumacher managed a lucky win in the first race of the 1995 season racing a highly unstable B195, then was hopelessly off the pace in the next race before crashing twice in the third one.

Didn't look too good for Michael then but .....

Salvation appeared in the form of Michael's teammate "Benetton Gimp" Johnny Herbert who's setup changes tamed the B195 beast and turned it into a car that Schumacher could finally drive without falling off the road.

True story.

Is this the same Johnny Herbert who has complained that Benetton didn't listen to him and never tried to make the car work for him? Very strange. It sounds like you have convinced yourself that your revisionist views of 1995 have somehow become the true story.

[aportinga]

Hey do you guys like stuff?

[Todd]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


And you really can't read can you. Want to go back and try again? Let me help you :

"Was it an ideal car? Absolutely not. Would Michael have preferred a perfectly balanced car? Undeniably."


The Benetton team and Michael couldn't figure out a way to fix their issues. We totally agree. The only way they could make the car quick was to make it nervous. Michael could deal with that so they went that route and made it as suitable to him as they could. Berger and Alesi (Smooth) had totally different reactions to the car because it was completely nervous and while being so not tuned to their styles.

You're so defensive Todd it's laughable.

And your posts try so hard to cover all the bases that they don't serve any purpose at all. You said the car suited him perfectly. It did not. You also said that he preferred a perfectly balanced car. He probably did. Every driver wants 'a perfectly balanced car,' but many drivers have a different idea of what perfect balance is. That is immaterial though. The fact is that your post contradicts itself. I suppose I should have stuck to pointing that out, but it wouldn't change the fact that your first statement was completely wrong.

[Ricardo F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Smooth


You still make no sense. MS' style did not dictate a nervous car, so drop the whole 'It was setup perfect for him' nonsense. He was able to drive around the flaws in the car, others were not. Every driver has a chance to set the car up.

I DIDN'T SAY THAT. FFS - Benetton couldn't produce a quick car that was well balanced, they could produce a very quick car that was nervous. Michael could drive around that so they addressed what they could so that it suited him as much as possible while not curing the fact it was nervous.

I make sense if you bother to read.

[Ricardo F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd


And your posts try so hard to cover all the bases that they don't serve any purpose at all. You said the car suited him perfectly. It did not. You also said that he preferred a perfectly balanced car. He probably did. Every driver wants 'a perfectly balanced car,' but many drivers have a different idea of what perfect balance is. That is immaterial though. The fact is that your post contradicts itself. I suppose I should have stuck to pointing that out, but it wouldn't change the fact that your first statement was completely wrong.

Never mind Todd. If you can't comprehend, you can't comprehend.

[Smooth]

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


I DIDN'T SAY THAT. FFS - Benetton couldn't produce a quick car that was well balanced, they could produce a very quick car that was nervous. Michael could drive around that so they addressed what they could so that it suited him as much as possible while not curing the fact it was nervous.

I make sense if you bother to read.

Quote

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


No, Michael was driving an impressive perfectly set up (for him) quick Benetton.

You make a lot of sense.

[aportinga]

None of you make sense - now log off and have a beer for christ sake

[Ricardo F1]

Quote

Originally posted by Smooth


You make a lot of sense.

Yes I do, it just seems like I'd have to take a step by step walk through for the kindegarten here to allow them to understand.

[karlth]

Quote

Originally posted by Todd
Is this the same Johnny Herbert who has complained that Benetton didn't listen to him and never tried to make the car work for him? Very strange.

Truth sometimes is, so allow me to quote from one of your favourite threads:

"I have never driven a car as bad as mine ... it was out of proportion."
Michael Schumacher, Barcelona 1995. Friday.

In qualifying on Saturday, desperate for improvement, Benetton and Schumacher tried some
radical setup changes by copying parts of Schumacher's teammate Johnny Herbert's setup onto
Michael's car. Magic. Schumacher went from having struggled to keep up with the Ferraris and
Williams in first qualifying to taking pole position by a massive 0.6s margin over Damon Hill.


Perhaps some of that Michael Magic™ rubbed onto Herbert?

[steeng]

Quote

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.

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.

Schumacher would have won the championship last year in the Williams:lol:

In 2002 the Ferrari was clearly the best car by a huge margin. JV, Montoya, Rakkinen, Alonso, Coulthard, - hell even Barrichello, Fisi or Ralf Schumacher would have won the World Championship in they were in the #1 Ferrari instead of Schumacher.

I find it amazing that Schumacher fans almost always say that any driver that beat Schumacher to the WDC only did it because they had a much better car. But when Schumacher has the much better car (1994, 2000, 2001, 2002, and even most of 2003) he wins the WDC because he's such a superior driver.

[steeng]

Quote

Originally posted by Fortymark


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..

This is exactly right. Ferrari's resurgence is down mostly to Ferrari's technical staff. Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn. I wager that Luca Badoer has done just as much as Schumacher to "develop the car" over the last five years.

I wonder what Schumacher would have been able to do at BAR with Malcom Oahlster, Andy Green, and about 150 less staff than he did at Ferrari. Probably the about the same that JV did. The difference is that Schumacher wouldn't have been as loyal as JV was and would have quit the team after about two years and went to McLaren or another team.

[McHulme]

If...

If JV had stayed in a top team, I think MS and MH would have been fighting much harder for their WDCs, and probably lost a couple to JV. Say what you like about his abilities, attitude, dev skills, etc, the one thing you can't doubt is his tenacity and grit when he has a shot at a decent position. Until JPM came along, MS could pretty safely assume he could intimidate everyone out of his way except JV. And his kamikaze effort to finish off '97 would have made JV even more determined to beat him. I'd be surprised if JV has ever felt intimidated by MS. You can argue he's not as good because he only did it in a decent car, but the point is if you put him in a decent car he will deliver. Damn shame he wasted all that time at BAR...