418 replies to this topic

[riffola]

I find it odd that a lot of people believe Schumacher isn't a fast driver. If I'm not badly mistaken I think during his Benneton days he was considered to be a fast driver, but ever since he's joined Ferrari his speedy image has taken a hit. Why is that?

He's had 60 fastest laps, 59 pole positions, won 75 races, led 115, with 4239 laps led. Surely all that points to more than just tactical racing skills. He's notorious for banging out fast in and out laps during pitstops. One of his trademarks is being fast on his very first lap of the GP weekend.

So is Michael one of the fastest drivers in F1 history, please note I didn't say fastest, or is he just a good racer who went against the norm in racing, where usually the fastest guy wins.

I'm hoping that we can discuss this without it turning into a fan vs. fan war.

[Sakae]

Originally posted by riffola
I find it odd that a lot of people believe Schumacher isn't a fast driver. If I'm not badly mistaken I think during his Benneton days he was considered to be a fast driver, but ever since he's joined Ferrari his speedy image has taken a hit. Why is that?

He's had 60 fastest laps, 59 pole positions, won 75 races, led 115, with 4239 laps led. Surely all that points to more than just tactical racing skills. He's notorious for banging out fast in and out laps during pitstops. One of his trademarks is being fast on his very first lap of the GP weekend.

So is Michael one of the fastest drivers in F1 history, please note I didn't say fastest, or is he just a good racer who went against the norm in racing, where usually the fastest guy wins.

I'm hoping that we can discuss this without it turning into a fan vs. fan war.

His speed is well documented as being adequate to keep him ahead.

[boyRacer]

just because a couple of nutjobs on an internet forum say he isnt fast doesn't mean its true. those people usually have selective memory as they continually bash other drivers in support of their own.

[Chevy II Nova]

Michael is fast at the right times. When drivers ahead duck into the pits for example.

MS goes as fast as he needs to win. This may very well be a contributor to his great reliability. Another driver who drove like this was named Fangio.

[raceday]

I can't recall ever reading anybody with credibility claiming his speed is average? You may find a handfull of people on this board who might try to claim he's averagely fast though?

Personally I'd say he's racepace is easily and obviously among the fastest ever. His qualifying pace is also obviously very fast but not quite as impressive as his racepace

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by riffola
I find it odd that a lot of people believe Schumacher isn't a fast driver.
I'm hoping that we can discuss this without it turning into a fan vs. fan war.

You've just taken too many things seriously about people who dislike MS or choose not to praise him, even if you throw Spa 95, a race where he won from the back of the grid in their face, there'll dig deep in their brains to find a excuse to why it isn't so, don't take the odd opinons seriously, there are people who seriously talk as if MS is a evil driver who is slow and uses witchcraft to become fast.

MiPe, like he said, MS's speed is well documented, to pick a easy quote without having to write so much on is already in races on tapes to watch:
Quoting Berger: "Ayrton knew much earlier then most of us, Schumacher was something special." There are quotes where Senna found Schumacher's cornering ability intriguing and stuff. You can go on about it hours and hours, but I don't have the time, if you've seen f1, the races are on fia video review tapes, there's telementry between Herbert and Schumacher M at Silverstone that is well documented, and used for a article for Autosport called "The secret of Schumacher's speed." And shows the extra speed Schumi took through a corner compared to Herbert etc, you got the net, fia video review races, people who have seen the races, it's all there.

Already in qualifying sessions this year, you've seen what at first seemed like a mistake you think which has cost MS time, like in Behrain and Sepang on his qualifying laps, I thought he lost too much time, then surprisingly he was up on that sector etc his balance of throttle and break through a corner allows him to take so much speed through a corner and be at more control on the limit then other drivers, it's also what gives him talent to find extra grip in the wet in past races, Spa 95, Spain 96 and many more.

[John]

Bloody short memories....don't listen to them riffola!

I'm not a Schumacher fan, but any naysayers out there who think Schumacher isn't fast are only wishing this.

Outright pure speed in qualifying; it has been stated by Martin Brundle (F1 Racing Mag, I believe) that he would put his money on Mika Hakkinen for such skill. But MS is such an incredibly consistent race driver, that his speed comes through on the times he can shave off lap after lap during the race, rather than over one lap. None of his competition has been so gifted, in my opinion. Back in 1996 through 1998, the Ferrari was not on par with its competition (Williams 1996, 1997, and Mac 1998), yet in the hands of MS, the championship stayed close, with some incredible performances (Hungary 1998 for example, gaining 1 second/lap over MH on a 3 stop strategy). This is why Martin Brundle has said in F1 Racing, that he would have to place his money on MS in the race. I couldn't agree more.

To win races you have to be fast and MS has done this while driving lesser, and greater equipment. Hey, did you really think that by lap 50 in Spain 04 that he would leave his competition over 25 seconds behind? Especially the beautifully aerodynamic Renaults? There is speed there. Its funny that people dispute this, but they can't get past the fact that since 1999, Ferrari has been an outstanding contructor.

[riffola]

I guess you guys are right it's just a handful on the net that try to play down his skills. I just find it a lil amazing that some people, despite the proof that's out there, write off his speed.

[Rene]

Watch the first 10 laps of any Grand Prix, which usually has MS driving away from everyone else....if thats not pure speed than I don't know what is....I don't know how a driver can win 1 GP let alone 75 if they aren't bloody fast (hence so few people have actually won a grand prix)...

[Deeq]

Originally posted by Chevy II Nova

MS goes as fast as he needs to win. This may very well be a contributor to his great reliability. Another driver who drove like this was named Fangio.

Word
You nailed it specially the comprison with the great Fangio, BTW it is an apt Comprison. There is a driver[Fangio] that is so extraordinary..... I wish I could have witnesed his bravado.

[Ricardo F1]

I don't think anyone is critical of his speed, especially over race distances. There have probably been faster qualifiers in recent history, Hakkinen and Senna being two drivers phenominal over a single lap - but one of Schumacher's great strengths is his ability to drive fast lap after lap.

[karlth]

Originally posted by riffola
I find it odd that a lot of people believe Schumacher isn't a fast driver.

I doubt anyone really thinks Schumacher isn't a very fast driver.

There are just some, me included, who think his pace has been flattered by a dominant car, average teammates and exclusive team support.

I think you'll find that there are extremes of views on both sides of the fence. Those who believe Schumacher would barely be able to qualify in equal machinery and those who think Schumacher's results are purely down to his talents.

Both extremes are wrong of course - the truth lies somewhere there in between.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Rene
Watch the first 10 laps of any Grand Prix, which usually has MS driving away from everyone else....if thats not pure speed than I don't know what is....

You are joking right?

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1
I don't think anyone is critical of his speed, especially over race distances. There have probably been faster qualifiers in recent history, Hakkinen and Senna being two drivers phenominal over a single lap - but one of Schumacher's great strengths is his ability to drive fast lap after lap.

Schumacher M in qualifying though could be matched at times by Hakkinen, but never really surpassed, if you look at Japan, Michael was on pole in 98 there, 99 also, 2000, Hakkinen didn't pipe him to pole in any of those championship show downs, he was close, but it didn't mean he was better then Michael, but at times he could match Michael one over lap in the dry when he felt right with his car, where as Michael could get pole in cars that weren't expected too-Monza 96 pole, Monaco 96 pole, Michael was fast over one lap in all sorts of cars.

If you got to call Hakkinen phenominal over one lap, Michael deserves the same treatement and more. But apart from that one gp in 1993 where Hakkinen pipped Senna bit tiny bits, it didn't make him as good as Senna, for that one try, Berger at times outqualfied Senna, Senna was in a different league, he was by far the better consistent qualifer and fastest over one lap we've seen.

Originally posted by SeanValen


You've just taken too many things seriously about people who dislike MS or choose not to praise him, even if you throw Spa 95, a race where he won from the back of the grid in their face, there'll dig deep in their brains to find a excuse to why it isn't so, don't take the odd opinons seriously, there are people who seriously talk as if MS is a evil driver who is slow and uses witchcraft to become fast.

Originally posted by riffola
I find it odd that a lot of people believe Schumacher isn't a fast driver. If I'm not badly mistaken I think during his Benneton days he was considered to be a fast driver, but ever since he's joined Ferrari his speedy image has taken a hit. Why is that?



I'm hoping that we can discuss this without it turning into a fan vs. fan war.

Originally posted by karlth



Both extremes are wrong of course - the truth lies somewhere there in between.

Riffola, remember when I said there's people's opinons you shouldn't take seriously, well Karlth is a strong unti MS poster, he's one to ignore, as good and as smart as he thinks he's applying his info, there's a 99% chance he's always wrong about anything MS.

[FlatFoot]

He's as fast as they come...but only when necessary.

[karlth]

Originally posted by SeanValen
Schumacher M in qualifying though could be matched at times by Hakkinen, but never really surpassed, if you look at Japan, Michael was on pole in 98 there, 99 also, 2000, Hakkinen didn't pipe him to pole in any of those championship show downs, he was close, but it didn't mean he was better then Michael, but at times he could match Michael one over lap in the dry when he felt right with his car, where as Michael could get pole in cars that weren't expected too-Monza 96 pole, Monaco 96 pole, Michael was fast over one lap in all sorts of cars.

If you got to call Hakkinen phenominal over one lap, Michael deserves the same treatement and more. But apart from that one gp in 1993 where Hakkinen pipped Senna bit tiny bits, it didn't make him as good as Senna, for that one try, Berger at times outqualfied Senna, Senna was in a different league, he was by far the better consistent qualifer and fasted over one lap we've seen.

Martin Brundle who drove with both Hakkinen and Schumacher felt that Mika was faster over a single lap. There really can't be a better judge on their respective abilities than him. Hakkinen on a single lap but he would bet on Schumacher over the race distance.

And there is no use comparing Michael's '96 qualifying achievements with Hakkinen as we have no way of knowing how fast the Ferrari F310 was.

[onepablo]

Originally posted by Chevy II Nova
Michael is fast at the right times. When drivers ahead duck into the pits for example.

MS goes as fast as he needs to win. This may very well be a contributor to his great reliability. Another driver who drove like this was named Fangio.

Talent and speed are obviously is requirements to win races, but I have always felt that to be WDC required that little extra...call it intelligence. Prost was another WDC who always drove as fast as was required to get the job done. His eye for race strategy set him apart from those who were merely fast.

BTW, there is the famous story of Fangio at the 1957 German GP that I think best exemplifies this smart racing. Pitting in for new tires, Fangio lost the lead to the Lancia-Ferraris of Hawthorne and Collins, which were able to run the entire race without pitting. As he rejoined the race, he deliberately slowed his first outlap's pace to the point that the Ferrari pit noticed and subsequently ordered their cars to slow in order to preserve their tires. With the German GP held at the old nurburgring at the time, the Ferrari crew would not be aware that Fangio was actually gaining on them until 10 minutes later (which was how long a lap took to complete). The Ferrari drivers, in turn, would not know this until they were signalled by the pits, a full twenty minutes later. Of course, by this time Fangio had passed both of them, clinching his fifth drivers title.

[BuonoBruttoCattivo]

IMO I've seen faster over a lap or two...but not over a race...

[karlth]

Originally posted by BuonoBruttoCattivo
IMO I've seen faster over a lap or two...but not over a race...

Schumacher's main competitors have never driven the same car as Schumacher so how on earth can you "see" that they were faster than him over a lap or two?

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by karlth


Martin Brundle who drove with both Hakkinen and Schumacher felt that Mika was faster over a single lap. There really can't be a better judge on their respective abilities than him. Hakkinen on a single lap but he would bet on Schumacher over the race distance.

And there is no use comparing Michael's '96 qualifying achievements with Hakkinen as we have no way of knowing how fast the Ferrari F310 was.

Martin who drove with Schumacher M didn't drive with Michael as Michael got better and learned his f1 season after season, where was Hakkinen's poles in Japan 98/99/2000 when he had the cars to beat Michael, Michael took all those poles. Hakkinen was very fast, I say very small difference when Hakkinen was hooked up he could be on Michael's speed, but surpassing Michael, I doubt it, only Senna you look too, for that extra special speed for qualifying..

[917k]

Originally posted by SeanValen


Schumacher M in qualifying though could be matched at times by Hakkinen, but never really surpassed, if you look at Japan, Michael was on pole in 98 there, 99 also, 2000, Hakkinen didn't pipe him to pole in any of those championship show downs, he was close, but it didn't mean he was better then Michael, but at times he could match Michael one over lap in the dry when he felt right with his car, where as Michael could get pole in cars that weren't expected too-Monza 96 pole, Monaco 96 pole, Michael was fast over one lap in all sorts of cars.

If you got to call Hakkinen phenominal over one lap, Michael deserves the same treatement and more. But apart from that one gp in 1993 where Hakkinen pipped Senna bit tiny bits, it didn't make him as good as Senna, for that one try, Berger at times outqualfied Senna, Senna was in a different league, he was by far the better consistent qualifer and fastest over one lap we've seen.

Right on.

How anyone can even quibble[to the smallest degree]about MS's qualifying performance,I cannot fathom.
I have seen almost every pole MS has won,in fact I have seen almost every qual lap he has run and it is fair to say the man IS fastest,race pace or quals.You have to see him perform in person.How he brakes later,turns in with more speed,settles the car instantly,and picks up the throttle earlier.
This was painfully obvious in Canada1995,compared to Herbert.
Herbert looked timid,ragged,throttle was erratic,missing the apex every 3rd lap.
MS-like a machine,every lap,bang on.......again and again.

[karlth]

Originally posted by SeanValen
... where was Hakkinen's poles in Japan 98/99/2000 when he had the cars to beat Michael, Michael took all those poles.

How do you know Hakkinen had the car to beat Schumacher in '98, '99 and 2000?

[jk]

Originally posted by karlth


Martin Brundle who drove with both Hakkinen and Schumacher felt that Mika was faster over a single lap. There really can't be a better judge on their respective abilities than him. Hakkinen on a single lap but he would bet on Schumacher over the race distance.

This quote is from the MS/MH years, and Brundle being diplomatic, decided to give one category to each driver. That way noone could complain. I don't think Brundle, being a TV-commentator, is as free-minded in his opinions as he could be.

Not to say that i disagree with him, it is just that i don't see Brundle being the ultimate judge in this matter.

[jk]

Another thing that might suggest that MS is not that great a qualifier, is JPM taking that many poles against the superior Ferrari of 2002.
But what was painfully obvious time after time, was that JPM, knowing he had little changes to win the race anyway, spend alot of time trying to get the great qual time, while MS was making sure he had the rigth setup for the race. That resultet in a "easy" championship and lots of wins, but not that many poles.

[karlth]

Originally posted by jk


This quote is from the MS/MH years, and Brundle being diplomatic, decided to give one category to each driver. That way noone could complain. I don't think Brundle, being a TV-commentator, is as free-minded in his opinions as he could be.

Do you mean Brundle really thought Hakkinen was quicker over the whole race too?

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by karlth


How do you know Hakkinen had the car to beat Schumacher in '98, '99 and 2000?

You don't know f1 too well do you.


Because it's a well known by people who watched f1 back then, the mclaren was the car to have in 98/99-yes Ferrari was closer towards the end of the season, but they didn't have a advantage, yet Michael got pole in 2000 at monza time, , the ferrari started using its tyres better, and I think everything knows at Japan 2000, there was virtually nothing between the cars at Japan 2000, it was a even contest, Michael got pole, a great qualifying, he had a tiny bit extra in him, Hakkinen didn't, so I don't understand why Hakkinen is the phenonmen etc over one lap, Senna was, and Michael is very good at it as well.

[andrimitum]

MS is fast no doubt.

I think most of the critics including myself are frustrated by the uneducated "fans" reactions to his results as if all cars from Ferraris to Minardis are equal and it is only the driver that is different.

Or frustrated at the praise MS gets as thought he designed, developed, built and maintains the car.

Or frustrated that people cheer for him because he's won and that is all they know of F1.


I remember his first race and I thought at that time that he was special. I remember watching Senna and MS in 94 and thinking Senna is really woried about MS and is being forced into mistakes. ( I thought this the first two races,, do not read anything else into my comment)

But I have come to realize (probably as a result of cheering for the right drivers at hte right times) that the driver can only do so much, it is mainly the car that wins the championships.

Sooooooo.........

MS is fast but is he faster than everyone else????????? Who knows........

Faster than most of the field... undoubtably but incidents like the Irvine one cause me to wonder.

(Irvine in his first out in a Ferrari was faster than MS and did not get to "test" again for several months as his "reward")


So as long as you ask is MS fast hte answer is YES

But if you claim he is faster than everyone else, the greatest ever blah blah blah.... I will point at his car and say let's see FA, KR, JPM, JV in that car then lets talk.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by karlth


Martin Brundle who drove with both Hakkinen and Schumacher felt that Mika was faster over a single lap. There really can't be a better judge on their respective abilities than him. Hakkinen on a single lap but he would bet on Schumacher over the race distance.

And there is no use comparing Michael's '96 qualifying achievements with Hakkinen as we have no way of knowing how fast the Ferrari F310 was.

How about the FIA timing system?
I think its safe to say it carries more weight than a crusty disgrunted biased journeymans opinion.

Its true that martin drove with both drivers and rated mika higher but its also true that a rookie michael thrashed martin harder than an experienced mika.
On average it was .250 of a second if i remember correctly from the multitude of past debates on this farcical issue.

I wont even bother with the Ferrari F310 part.

[checkonetwo]

Originally posted by Chevy II Nova
Michael is fast at the right times. When drivers ahead duck into the pits for example.

MS goes as fast as he needs to win. This may very well be a contributor to his great reliability. Another driver who drove like this was named Fangio.

or niki lauda.

i think schumachers only problem is that he occasionally flaws under pressure, that is why he has to get rid of it any which way he can. as a driver, i don´t think he has any weak points at all. dry, wet, qualifying, race, he´s pretty much setting the standárds in each department. fitness, timing, consistency are primera division at 34. plus he´s got a car that is a full second faster than the rest.

there is every reason to believe he might take eight wdc titles before he quits as a reigning champion.

i was already pissed with his second one.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Arrow

How about the FIA timing system?

Unfortunately it doesn't time the driver and car seperately. Perhaps in a few years time it will.

[karlth]

Originally posted by SeanValen


You don't know f1 too well do you.

... there was virtually nothing between the cars at Japan 2000, it was a even contest ...

How do you know that Hakkinen's McLaren and Schumacher's Ferrari were as fast at Suzuka in 2000?

[Sir Frank]

Originally posted by karlth


How do you know that Hakkinen's McLaren and Schumacher's Ferrari were as fast at Suzuka in 2000?

Talking about this race, I read somewhere (perhaps this forum???) that Bridgestone only brought 1 compound tyre, instead of the regular 2. Can anybody confirm this?

[karlth]

Originally posted by Sir Frank


Talking about this race, I read somewhere (perhaps this forum???) that Bridgestone only brought 1 compound tyre, instead of the regular 2. Can anybody confirm this?

Yes.

From GrandPrix.com 2000 Suzuka Race Report:

Often this year Ferrari has been competitive in qualifying only to lose out to McLaren in the race because of tire wear. But for the Japanese GP we had an unusual situation as Bridgestone decided to bring only one type of tire, working on the principle that everyone was going to choose the medium tire. These were new and rather more durable than early versions of the same tire.

In theory more durable tires would favor Ferrari. "The tires are good," said McLaren's Adrian Newey "although a little harder than we'd like. The medium compound tire is comparable to the hard tires that Bridgestone brought here in 1998 and at that time we ran on soft tires."

But Hakkinen said it made no real difference. "If you were to have tires that were a little softer than the ones we are running now it could be a problem," he said. This time Schumacher said he was not worried about tire wear.

[312B3]

Anyone who uses what Martin Brundle said about Michael Schumacher as an unbiased comment, without mentioning that the same Martin Brundle also just happens to be David Coulthard's manager (and was when that statement was made), leaves out an important little detail. If, as Brundle claimed, Hakkinen really was consistently faster over one lap than Schumacher, than Coulthard, who was most of the time behind Hakkinen but only barely, must have been almost at Schumacher's level. That in turn, then, justifies a massive retainer for David, and a slice of that going to one Martin Brundle. Now, unlike most here, I always thought that David Coulthard was a supremely gifted driver whose capabilities were greater than he was allowed to show at McLaren during the years when he partnered Hakkinen. (Today, Coulthard is clearly not as quick anymore as he once was.) That said, the question aside of whether Schumacher or Hakkinen was faster over one lap--who cares what Brundle says!--Michael's respect for Mika speaks volumes in this regard, and clearly implies that he regarded him as an equal. But who, other than Mika, was there since Senna's death, who could have regularly challenged Michael's speed over one lap? Villeneuve, Montoya, Raikkonen, Fisichella, Trulli, Alonso, Barrichello? Sure, all of these drivers and a couple of other ones could on occasion be quicker, but there is little evidence that anyone of those guys could beat Schumacher in equal machinery over one lap more often than not. That appears to be the consensus in the paddock as well. Cheers.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by karlth


How do you know that Hakkinen's McLaren and Schumacher's Ferrari were as fast at Suzuka in 2000?

http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr662.html
quote:
MICHAEL SCHUMACHER won a glorious victory after a race-long battle with Mika Hakkinen in treacherous conditions at Suzuka. For most of the race it was what motor racing is all about, a fabulous demonstration of two men going head-to-head in evenly-matched machinery. After 21 years Ferrari has finally done it. Mika Hakkinen was generous in defeat. It was all too good to be true. Who would thought it?...

I picked out that quote because ferrari vs mclaren was very popular back at that point, and people were amazed just how close they were in terms of their cars they produced, after Monza 2000, Ferrari started using their tyres better in the race, from then onwards, ferrari and mclaren looked very sharp and evenly matched.


Anyone who saw Suzuka 2000, saw Michael and Mika at not tenths at separation most of that weekend, but thousandts, 2000 was a special season, were by towards the close, ferrari and mclaren designed their cars so well, there were articles written about two teams with different people, can go off, design cars, and then have drivers Mika and Michael on a track like Suzuka be separated by thousanths of a second in qualifying and in many laps during the race, of cource until Michael was that bit faster when it started to to a rain a bit.

If your questioning differences between cars at Suzuka 2000, you definately don't know your f1 well, they were as evenly matched as they come, and Mika vs Michael in thier best battle, it was a significant battle in that if Michael lost it, it would be his greatest defeat I say, because everything that weekend was made for Mika vs Michael, qualifying sessions were good for them, cars were evenly matched, Martin Brundle said there's virtually nothing to choose between them, the one thing Michael was significant at that weekend was:

1. When Hakkinen got provisional pole again after overtaking Michael's time, Michael showed the grin of confidence that he would beat it before going out, that he had a bit extra in him, he went out, and took it and got pole, by the smallest of margins, I wouldn't say it was significant beating, but given how good Hakkinen was, for Michael to do as good as lap again and a tiny bit more was significant, especially if you consider people saying Hakkinen is faster around one lap,at best he has shown he's as good as MS around one lap when he's hooked up, but that pole was Michael having a bit extra, so in no way is Michael deficent in qualifying.

2. Hakkinen was strong all race, but he isn't the complete driver in that, when it's damp, and there's less grip, Michael is better in those conditions, thus Suzuka 2000 gave MS and MH their big test of a pure qualifying session, very evently we haven't seen the likes of for a while given they were cars built by different teams, we had a dry race, and a wetter part of the race, in qualifying and race, MS just came out on top, it was the perfect race to say I'm the best, but you were my best competitor for a long time. Mika and Michael gave us a Suzuka classic and a great way for MS to win his first WC for ferrari, in a evenly matched fight.






http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr662.html

Another quote to close off:
In the afternoon we were treated to a most entertaining battle for pole position between the two World Championship contenders. The action did not really begin until the first half hour had slipped quietly by and then Schumacher took pole with Hakkinen a tenth slower on his first run. A few minutes later Mika sliced a few hundredths from Michael's pole time and went ahead. But Michael's second run took a tenth off Mika's best.

With the time ticking away both men came out again for Round Three and Hakkinen sliced a few hundredths off pole again. But Schumacher's lap was 0.009s better.

In the final moments Hakkinen went for it again. "I was not able to get the power down well enough coming out of the chicane," he explained. "I lost two-tenths of a second."

The telemetry down at McLaren confirmed the fact that at the apex of the last corner Hakkinen was a tenth ahead of Schumacher. But such is the way with F1 at the moment. It does not matter if the gap is the blink of a humming bird's wing. It is enough. In qualifying, 0.009s equals eight meters of road when the grid lines up on Sunday. Schumacher was where he wanted to be, even if Hakkinen should perhaps have been there if all had gone well.

[ZZMS]

It is pathetic to see ppl desperately trying to find weaknesses of MS as a driver. This myth about MS been not great qualifier is at best.. myth, but in reality it is plain stupid BS. The best way to judge drivers speed is by comparing him to his team mate and MS has far better ratio then Hakkinen and maybe even Senna. And all of them had thier share of mediocre teammates.

Same goes for Brundle. He may BS about Hakkinen having the edge over MS in qualifying but cold noBS numbers says that 1st full year MS outqualified MB at his prime by bigger margin then 4th full year MH did to aging MB.

BTW if we compare how MS and MH fared with JH we would have even more favorable to MS picture.

[Sir Frank]

Thank You, Karl

[karlth]

Originally posted by SeanValen
"a fabulous demonstration of two men going head-to-head in evenly-matched machinery."

You are going a bit overboard Sean. That is just a race report from GrandPrix.com. I seriously doubt the journalist had access to McLaren and Ferrari's race simulations to accurately gauge if the cars were indeed equal and he would be the first one to admit it.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Sir Frank
Thank You, Karl

Originally posted by karlth


Yes.

From GrandPrix.com 2000 Suzuka Race Report:

Where's the link though?

It's a made up quote until I see a link to the article.

[Ricardo F1]

Originally posted by SeanValen
. . . yet Michael got pole in 2000 at monza time, , the ferrari started using its tyres better, and I think everything knows at Japan 2000, there was virtually nothing between the cars at Japan 2000, it was a even contest, Michael got pole, a great qualifying, he had a tiny bit extra in him, Hakkinen didn't, so I don't understand why Hakkinen is the phenonmen etc over one lap, Senna was, and Michael is very good at it as well.

There was nothing between the McLaren and Ferrari by Monza 2000, indeed the last four races of the season the Ferrari was a superior car. Not by much, but to say that "Michael had a tiny bit extra" is bollocks in the extreme. To be honest unless they had the same car you couldn't say either way, but I'd say Hakkinen p1, Schumacher the race is a consensus that Brundle started and many agree with.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Ricardo F1


There was nothing between the McLaren and Ferrari by Monza 2000, indeed the last four races of the season the Ferrari was a superior car. Not by much, but to say that "Michael had a tiny bit extra" is bollocks in the extreme. To be honest unless they had the same car you couldn't say either way, but I'd say Hakkinen p1, Schumacher the race is a consensus that Brundle started and many agree with.

What makes you think Ferrari was now superior to McLaren after Monza 2000, Michael is a bit extra in the car, that's always got to be taken into account.

Originally posted by karlth


You are going a bit overboard Sean. That is just a race report from GrandPrix.com. I seriously doubt the journalist had access to McLaren and Ferrari's race simulations to accurately gauge if the cars were indeed equal and he would be the first one to admit it.

I picked out the evenly matched machinery in their artcile because it's the general concensus, that article is a example. Murry Walker, Martin Brundle, all commented on that race and commentated on the cars, in fact, Murry Walker prefred the mclaren, it was taking some kerbs better in the race, and the mclaren was the car of 2000 as voted by fans of f1 racing, so at best, ferrari didn't have advantage in 2000, mclaren more often had a advantage in 2000, especially before Monza 2000 where Ferrari had trouble with eating it's tyres up quicker.

[SlateGray]

There is no doubt that MS is "fast"

On race pace he may be the fastest ever.
In the Q he is only fast but not fastest of all, IMHO.

It has been said many times before. It is his commitment to his craft and the way he applies himself to said craft that is second to none.

I wonder how a fan of MS can be so insecure about their fav driver.
The guy is 6 time WDC for crying out fricking loud. You don't get to be 6 time champion without being "fast"

[George Bailey]

Originally posted by karlth


Martin Brundle who drove with both Hakkinen and Schumacher felt that Mika was faster over a single lap.

Martin must not have a subscription to FORIX.



Schumacher beat Brundle 16 out of 16 races in 1992 with an average gap of 1.0 sec.
(high 1.8 low 0.1)

Hakkinen beat Brundle 15 out of 15 races in 1994 with an average gap of 0.75 sec.
(high 1.7 low 0.1)




It's hard to see from the actual qualifying results exactly why Brundle thinks MH is faster over one lap.

[FerrariFanInTexas]

Oddly enough, I've been analyzing some numbers lately, doing a comparison between Schumacher and Jim Clark. It just happens that after Spain this year, MS has participated in 72 races since the start of the 2000 season. Clark was in a total of 72 WDC races in his entire career. So, knowing that a lot of old-timers count Clark among the fastest drivers ever, I wanted to compare Schumacher's last 72 races with Clark's 72 race career totals.

The results for 72 races -

Clark (Career) - 25 Wins, 33 poles, 28 fastest laps.

M. Schumacher (2000-2004) - 40 wins, 36 poles, 21 fastest laps.

Along the way, Schumacher earned 10 hat tricks in the 72 races since Oz 2000. I haven't been able to find the right data set to try and determine Clark's hat tricks.

Overall, Schumacher's numbers for the past 4+ seasons rate very favorably with Clark's career numbers. I'd say Scumacher is fast enough.

CAC

[Deeq]

Originally posted by karlth


Unfortunately it doesn't time the driver and car seperately. Perhaps in a few years time it will.

Rant//
Would they have to run over the S/F to now who is faster? I tought we were talking about F1 rather than 200m race of athletics. Rant//



How else are we going to decide who is faster if not by the watch, could you suggest a reasonable and better alternative for this purpose?
Anyhow the cars MH/MB drove the same car as JMB/MS----> difference between them makes good base for judgement on MH vs MS.

Atleast better than subjective judgements made by MB[or for that matter anyone], He could have been selling his driver[DC] by hyping up his teammate.

BTW JH fared better vis a vis MH compared with MS.. Perhaps its time to invoke the famous "Car and/or Status" card.


Cheers

[Sir Frank]

Originally posted by SeanValen




Where's the link though?

It's a made up quote until I see a link to the article.

C'mon Sean, http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr662.html

[karlth]

Originally posted by FerrariFanInTexas
Overall, Schumacher's numbers for the past 4+ seasons rate very favorably with Clark's career numbers. I'd say Scumacher is fast enough.

You can only say that Schumacher in the Ferrari was fast enough.

Apart from 1965 it is difficult to say that Clark drove anything comparable to the ultra reliable and dominant F200x Ferraris.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by Sir Frank


C'mon Sean, http://www.grandprix.../gpe/rr662.html

Whats your interest in the tyres thing?

quote:

Ron Dennis was seeing reds under every bed as usual and Ferrari was relying on Michael Schumacher to work magic with a car which is still clearly not a match for the McLarens although the latest Bridgestone tires seem to have given Ferrari a little hint of a boost.

A little hint of a boost, the ferrari still didn't have anythnig impressive over the mclaren at Suzuka, they were evenly matched, and then I'm being generous because Murray and a few still thought the mclaren was better in the race, taking kerbs better etc. The extra ferrari had was Michael.

[karlth]

Originally posted by Deeq
How else are we going to decide who is faster if not by the watch, could you suggest a reasonable and better alternative for this purpose?

I'm sorry Deeq but you cannot compare for example the pace of Nick Heidfeld in the Jordan to Michael Schumacher in the Ferrari by looking at their lap times.

You can compare Schumacher/Ferrari to Heidfeld/Jordan but not the drivers seperately.

[Johny Bravo]

Originally posted by karlth


his pace has been flattered by a dominant car, average teammates and exclusive team support.

Errrhm. How exactly can speed be flattered by the car, a teammate or a team? Speed is there or isn't there.