516 replies to this topic

[Valentinik]

common perception is that Raikkonen (and Hakkinen) as well has better raw speed compared to MS.

I think it is a perception made when things come together with the best car. Well, it is easy to look like a driver with the best raw speed when you have the best car.


Michael Schumacher did look very deadly fast in the all conquering Benetton 1994 as well.


So my point is, I do not agree with the common notion that Raikkonen is the current fastest driver. He happens to be in the fastest car, and he is great at extracting maximum speed out of the car, just like MS in the Benetton 1994.

No disrespect to Raikkonen, he is a very good driver, just like MS.

[100cc]

ok.

[rileyl]

Originally posted by Valentinik
common perception is that Raikkonen (and Hakkinen) as well has better raw speed compared to MS.

I think it is a perception made when things come together with the best car. Well, it is easy to look like a driver with the best raw speed when you have the best car.


Michael Schumacher did look very deadly fast in the all conquering Benetton 1994 as well.


So my point is, I do not agree with the common notion that Raikkonen is the current fastest driver. He happens to be in the fastest car, and he is great at extracting maximum speed out of the car, just like MS in the Benetton 1994.

No disrespect to Raikkonen, he is a very good driver, just like MS.

Just Raw Speed, I would put Hakkinen ahead of both of them!

[rileyl]

Originally posted by rileyl


Just Raw Speed, I would put Hakkinen ahead of both of them!

http://www.atlasf1.c...hp/id/137/.html

Check out here and see what Martin Brundle saids!

[Milt]

Originally posted by rileyl


http://www.atlasf1.c...hp/id/137/.html

Check out here and see what Martin Brundle saids!

Thanks, rileyl

I loved Brundle's last paragraph....
"If Michael Schumacher and Mika Hakkinen were in the same Formula One team, with the same equipment, during qualifying, in the dry, and you asked me to stake my kids' building society accounts on who would bag the pole, I'd put my money on Mika. But Michael would win the race."

[Sith]

Originally posted by Valentinik
common perception is that Raikkonen (and Hakkinen) as well has better raw speed compared to MS.

I think it is a perception made when things come together with the best car. Well, it is easy to look like a driver with the best raw speed when you have the best car.


Michael Schumacher did look very deadly fast in the all conquering Benetton 1994 as well.


So my point is, I do not agree with the common notion that Raikkonen is the current fastest driver. He happens to be in the fastest car, and he is great at extracting maximum speed out of the car, just like MS in the Benetton 1994.

No disrespect to Raikkonen, he is a very good driver, just like MS.

"perception" as you put it, is just like personal opinion. It can be clouded by emotions... (to your fav driver) people like Brundle are in a much better position to give an opinion, which is based on facts.

Most journalists have been saying for the last few years that Kimi is now the fastest driver out there... I'm not saying that, people who are ALOT closer to the inner sanctum of F1 than we'll ever be are saying it... who are we to argue??? You don't have to agree, but then that might be due to emotions clouding your judgement....

[Milt]

Originally posted by Sith


"perception" as you put it, is just like personal opinion. It can be clouded by emotions... (to your fav driver) people like Brundle are in a much better position to give an opinion, which is based on facts.

Most journalists have been saying for the last few years that Kimi is now the fastest driver out there... I'm not saying that, people who are ALOT closer to the inner sanctum of F1 than we'll ever be are saying it... who are we to argue??? You don't have to agree, but then that might be due to emotions clouding your judgement....

Well spoken !!!

I am much more inclined to give credence to the opinion of a former F1 driver, who has raced ON THE SAME TEAM, as to the relative merits of any particular driver, to that former driver, rather than any Forum member.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Sometimes I think we put way too much importance on raw speed. As if thats the special bit. To me it doesnt matter, you're quick or not. So what, I'm taller than average, I dont care. Im more impressed by someone who is clever, hard working, etc. Michael Schumacher would have been a success at anything he could do. If someone can lap faster than him, what good is that outside of a race car?

Look at Jody Scheckter. Hell he was an F1 WC, with Ferrari no less; and his out-of-the-car career is 10 times more impressive. Im more impressed with him than all of Gilles Villeneuve's raw speed.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Sith


"perception" as you put it, is just like personal opinion. It can be clouded by emotions... (to your fav driver) people like Brundle are in a much better position to give an opinion, which is based on facts.

Yet all that brundle provided was opinion that could, like anyone elses be clouded by emotions. His opinion had nothing to do with facts because if it did, he would have said Michael was quicker, because thats what the facts show.

In regards to Kimi. He has blindling speed but its a big stretch to put him above one of the very fastest of all time. The best judge of speed was always qualifying yet for most of Kimis career we have had this stupid qualifying system that was more about application than ultimate speed, so its hard to judge him properly. With the new system we will get a better guage. Hes certainly close but he will never be faster. I dont think its physically possible.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Sith
Most journalists have been saying for the last few years that Kimi is now the fastest driver out there...

*coughbullshitcough*

Shaun

[Milt]

@ Arrow,

When you make flat statements like this one... "He's certainly close but he will never be faster. I dont think its physically possible", I wonder what planet you come from.

If Kimi beats Michael in Q3 at Bahrain, then your excuse could of course be that "Well, the McLaren is a better car"

Unless, and until, we see both of them, in identical cars, on the same track, at the same time, you are just blowing hot air.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Milt
@ Arrow,

When you make flat statements like this one... "He's certainly close but he will never be faster. I dont think its physically possible", I wonder what planet you come from.

If Kimi beats Michael in Q3 at Bahrain, then your excuse could of course be that "Well, the McLaren is a better car"

Unless, and until, we see both of them, in identical cars, on the same track, at the same time, you are just blowing hot air.

I was talking generally. Nobody is perfect 100% of the time, but on a general level of speed, I believe Schumacher is as fast as you can get. If you drive a car on the limit then you cant go any faster, so nobody can be faster than you.

[Piif]

Originally posted by Arrow

I dont think its physically possible.

It is always possible and it is inevitable that someday there will be someone who will break Schumachers records. It ALWAYS happens. Whether it is Kimi who will break them remains to be seen, but someone will.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Piif


It is always possible and it is inevitable that someday there will be someone who will break Schumachers records. It ALWAYS happens. Whether it is Kimi who will break them remains to be seen, but someone will.

Thats nice. I wasnt talking about records though was it.

[dde]

Hakkinen was so much faster than MS that he got 4 poles in 2000 with a faster McLaren, while Schumacher got 9 poles in a slower Ferrari.

And Raikkonen is no faster than Hakkinen (or Montoya, or "Ralf in a good day", etc etc)

[Rob Silver Speed]

Originally posted by Arrow

If you drive a car on the limit then you cant go any faster, so nobody can be faster than you.

You've obviously never heard the interview with Senna where he describes his way of driving, it went something like "I drive the car as fast as it will go, and i find the limit, you then touch that limit, and once i have touched the limit i can go beyond it"

[baddog]

Originally posted by Piif


It is always possible and it is inevitable that someday there will be someone who will break Schumachers records. It ALWAYS happens. Whether it is Kimi who will break them remains to be seen, but someone will.

It wont be Kimi. 5 years already without an championship or particularly huge stats for anything else is too much wasted time.

Kimi is fantastic. Best driver to enter for a long long time. But he has an awfully long way to go to trouble Schumachers legacy.

Shaun

[dde]

Brundle instead of doing his DC's manager's job in the medias for years should have had a look at times sheets : MS rookie was 1.1s faster than him in the same car while Hakkinen was 0.7s faster than him 2 years later at McLaren.

[Pep]

Originally posted by Arrow


I was talking generally. Nobody is perfect 100% of the time, but on a general level of speed, I believe Schumacher is as fast as you can get. If you drive a car on the limit then you cant go any faster, so nobody can be faster than you.

When reading that I've remembered these words from Nigel Roebuck some months ago:

I also think that Fernando, more than any driver since Gilles Villeneuve, is on it the whole time, from the first lap to the last. Very well, he may have relaxed his pace some of the time in the crucial 'Championship clinching' races in late season, but ordinarily his commitement in races, his ability to maintain a ferocious pace, is extraordinary. Raikkonen, according to McLaren people, was 'asleep' much of the time in the three pre-European races this year - and that, of course, was when Alonso was making hay.

Anyway, motorsport is not like athletics (easy to say who is the quickest at any given time). Most of the opinions are based in perceptions and sometimes it's imposible to reach the same conclusions.

[kodandaram]

2000 was perhaps the easiest year to compare Mika and Michael directly since their cars were more or less comparable.

The F2000 or whatever it was called was definitely more reliable while Mikas McLaren was the quicker car but lacked reliability .

The 2000 Ferrari looked that good because Michale drove like that. If you remove Michael and see Woobens results you will see that the Ferrari was only a few tenths quicker than the 3rd best car that year - the BMW Williams.

The notion that Mika is quicker over a lap probably stems from that season ..or atleast that idea would have gotten more accepted I think . But you shouldn't overlook the fact that Mikas numerous poles were all had when his McLaren Mercedes had a sizeable advantage over Michales patently high mid grid ferraris ....especially in 2000 ..with reliability the McLaren should have won both titles ...but they didn't.

But the pace was so clear over one lap ..and yes I sometimes do wonder if Mika was as good as Senna over one lap . Mika is incredubly talented qualifier ...that one hot lap on the limit ..no mistakes ..just soak the pressure and he even looked so smooth ..

Its hard to judge but I think it would be very close between Mika and Michael even in qualifying ...if they had the same cars. Because when Michael finally got a car advantage ...in 2001 ..he hardly needed to use all his qualy laps to get the best possible lap he thought was possible from him . I remember Nurburgring - a technical circuit definitely not easy to hotlap and sit on ur bum saying thats my best..but michale used only 2 runs IIRC ...

So IMHO , Michael's one lap pace is as good as any . The biggest advantage he has is as a racer - no match till today ...apart from the odd ocassions where the other car was so good that even his genius couldn't make a difference ...he has been supreme since he debuted in F1....raw race pace...thats his forte.

There is Kimi - he is making a few more mistakes these days than when during his early couple of years but still phenomenally quick ...quicker than mika ? nah...not over a lap ...quicker than Michale ? not sure ...I think Kimi doesn't do a complete race distance at his potential ...Michael even ALonso race all the time at their best level ..Kimi seems more like a burst of energy and then he settles down ..into a fairly high level but not his best. Its like he needs a target to show the brilliance ...I wonder what would happen if ever had to sit at the front and race all on his own...

I think its Mika ...Michale just behind and then Kimi for pace over a lap. Race distance ? I think Michael , Alonso , Mika , Kimi.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Arrow


I was talking generally. Nobody is perfect 100% of the time, but on a general level of speed, I believe Schumacher is as fast as you can get. If you drive a car on the limit then you cant go any faster, so nobody can be faster than you.

Hi Arrow,
You are welcome to your belief that "Schumacher is as fast as you can get".

But when push comes to shove, and I ask myself "Should I believe Arrow's opinion, or that of an F1 driver, who raced on the same team, with BOTH Schumacher and Hakinen", please don't feel insulted, just because I chose to believe Martin Brundle's opinion, over yours.

And just because Brundle was soundly beaten by both team-mates does NOT make his opinion any less valid.
He was THERE, racing on the same tracks, in the same car.
He wasn't saying, or even suggesting, that he was 'on-a-par' with EITHER team-mate.
He only said that one was faster than the other on 'ultimate pace'
But that the opposite was true, when it came to 'race-craft'.
And I, for one, tend to believe him.

[baddog]

No he said Mika could put one lap together, but Michael could put them together one after another for a whole race. Its not about racecraft its about consistent ultimate speed.

Shaun

[Milt]

Originally posted by baddog
No he said Mika could put one lap together, but Michael could put them together one after another for a whole race. Its not about racecraft its about consistent ultimate speed.

Shaun

A bit of an exaggeration there, Shaun.
What he actually said was quoted, many posts above, but in case you missed it, here it is again...

"If Michael Schumacher and Mika Hakkinen were in the same Formula One team, with the same equipment, during qualifying, in the dry, and you asked me to stake my kids' building society accounts on who would bag the pole, I'd put my money on Mika. But Michael would win the race."

Now, I could interpret that statement to mean that Schuie would force his competitor off the track, just because of his intense desire to win, at any cost.
But I won't.
I'll just accept his statement "But Michael would win the race." for what it is... his opinion.

[baddog]

It means Michael would win the race. IE he is better at racing. In modern F1 almost all of racing is doing fast laps repeatedly.

Shaun

[carbonfibre]

Now, I could interpret that statement to mean that Schuie would force his competitor off the track, just because of his intense desire to win, at any cost.
But I won't.

If you come to that conclusion you might look at yourself first.

He is just saying: Michael is faster in race conditions but Mika is faster in making an ultimate lap.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Milt
Hi Arrow,
You are welcome to your belief that "Schumacher is as fast as you can get".

But when push comes to shove, and I ask myself "Should I believe Arrow's opinion, or that of an F1 driver, who raced on the same team, with BOTH Schumacher and Hakinen", please don't feel insulted, just because I chose to believe Martin Brundle's opinion, over yours.
.

Dont beleive me. Beleive the facts.

MS rookie was 1.1s faster than him in the same car while Hakkinen was 0.7s faster than him 2 years later at McLaren.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Arrow

Dont beleive me. Beleive the facts.

MS rookie was 1.1s faster than him in the same car while Hakkinen was 0.7s faster than him 2 years later at McLaren.

Try reading the WHOLE post, (#21 for those who want to bother), or at least do me the courtesy of quoting the whole thing, when you reply to one of my posts.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Milt
You've quoted less than 1/2 of my post (#21 for those who want to bother)
Try reading the WHOLE post, or at least do me the courtesy of quoting the whole thing, when you reply to one of my posts.

The rest was not relevant. Your taking brundles opinion, im just stating fact.
I want to get your view on this. How can Brundle be correct when the timing shows that the gap to Michael was far larger than the one to Mika?

[Milt]

Originally posted by carbonfibre

If you come to that conclusion you might look at yourself first.

He is just saying: Michael is faster in race conditions but Mika is faster in making an ultimate lap.

I didn't say that I came to that conclusion.
I simply said that "I could interpret it that way, but I won't".

Like, I'll never forget that race where Jean Todt said something to the effect of "We need 20 seconds over the next 15 laps", and Schuie said "OK"
And then proceeded to put in 15 qualifying laps, one after another, like clockwork.

I've also watch Kimi go out at the head of the pack, and put in 20 ~ 25 laps at Q-speed, in order to build up enough time to pit and still come out ahead of the second-place runner.

I appreciate their talent... I couln't even dream of touching it.

But if I chose to believe that Kimi, or Hakkinen, can take the measure of MS, in equal equipment, am I 'out-of-line' to state my opinion ???
It would seem so...

[carbonfibre]

No i was just wondering how you could interpetate it that way.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Arrow


The rest was not relevant. Your taking brundles opinion, im just stating fact.
I want to get your view on this. How can Brundle be correct when the timing shows that the gap to Michael was far larger than the one to Mika?

Arrow, do you realize that you have simply copied an unsubstantiated statement, made by 'dde', (in post number 18), and calling it "stating fact"
That's just BS, because you don't KNOW that for fact, and you can't even state if that was in one race, one qualifying session, or whether the 4/10's gap was absolutely constant, over both entire seasons.

I am simply taking Brudle's opinion, over yours.
Is that too difficult, or painful, for you to understand ???
I believe, and this is not to diminish YOUR opinion in the slightest, but I believe that his opinion carries more weight that yours.
No insult is intended, and I hope none is taken.

[jokuvaan]

You have no vuking way to compare their speed, this thread is useless and will lead nowhere.

[Milt]

Originally posted by carbonfibre
No i was just wondering how you could interpetate it that way.

That was simply to ward off some of the MS haters (and there are a few hanging out on this Forum, and I don't think I need to name them).

Let's face it, MS has the record book pretty well 'locked-up', (except for Senna's pole record, and he could easily grab that this year, and then retire, 'At-the-Top')

But let's also accept the fact that he has been accused (rightly or wrongly), of some 'unsportsman-like conduct', on several different race tracks, with several different drivers, over the years.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Milt
Arrow, do you realize that you have simply copied an unsubstantiated statement, made by 'dde', (in post number 18), and calling it "stating fact"
That's just BS, because you don't KNOW that for fact, and you can't even state if that was in one race, one qualifying session, or whether the 4/10's gap was absolutely constant, over both entire seasons.

I am simply taking Brudle's opinion, over yours.
Is that too difficult, or painful, for you to understand ???
I believe, and this is not to diminish YOUR opinion in the slightest, but I believe that his opinion carries more weight that yours.
No insult is intended, and I hope none is taken.

Err the above is fact. Over the entire season 1992 the average qualifying gap between Michael and Brundle was 1.1 seconds, compared the 0.7 with Mika in 1994. Thats fact and has been know for many years, I thought you knew that.

If you dont believe it go and work it out yourself.

Now that I have explained to you the above is actual fact, has your opinion changed on Brundles view?

[Spunout]

You've obviously never heard the interview with Senna where he describes his way of driving, it went something like "I drive the car as fast as it will go, and i find the limit, you then touch that limit, and once i have touched the limit i can go beyond it"

You´ve obviously never heard the interview with Maradona where he describes The Hand of God

[giacomo]

I don't think that the rating of Brundle (who was partial in his function as Coulthards manager) is very decisive in this question.

Much more decisive are the facts, i.e. the lap times.
Here we have two standards to rate the qualifying speed of Schumacher and Hakkinen: Herbert and Brundle.

Here are the results of the practice duels:
Lotus 1991: Hakkinen - Herbert 3-5 / average difference 0,231 sec
Benetton 1992: Schumacher - Brundle 16-0 / average difference 1,019 sec
Lotus 1992: Hakkinen - Herbert 7-9 / average difference 0,126 sec
Benetton 1994: Schumacher - Herbert 14-0 / average difference 3,05 sec
McLaren 1994: Hakkinen - Brundle 15-0 / average difference 0,77 sec


These figures makes it hard to claim that Hakkinen was faster than Schumacher.

[baddog]

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed


You've obviously never heard the interview with Senna where he describes his way of driving, it went something like "I drive the car as fast as it will go, and i find the limit, you then touch that limit, and once i have touched the limit i can go beyond it"

He didnt half used to talk out of his arse sometimes. Good job he was so bloody fast.

[SkorbiF1]

Oh my god, what a thread.
So original, and just what we need in here.
I bet that the next person to post will tell us all which one of them is really the fastest one, and then we will all finally know the truth.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Rob Silver Speed
You've obviously never heard the interview with Senna where he describes his way of driving, it went something like "I drive the car as fast as it will go, and i find the limit, you then touch that limit, and once i have touched the limit i can go beyond it"

Senna and his PR talks...

"I felt as though I was driving in a tunnel. The whole circuit became a tunnel... I had reached such a high level of concentration that it was as if the car and I become one. Together we were the maximum. I was giving the car everything and vice versa...", blah blah blah.

[baddog]

"Driving a Formula one car is a lot like making love to a beautiful woman...."

[SkorbiF1]

I wonder if I should go to the SETI boards and tell them that there are little gray, not green, men living in outerspace, because that's what I think is true.

Gray vs Green space men (in outer space)
common perception is that there are little green (and purple) men living in outer space, but no gray ones.

I think it is a perception made when things come together. Well, it is easy to look like a a green spaceman when you have green light targeted to you.


Gray spacemen did exist already in the early 1994 X-files episodes.


So my point is, I do not agree with the common notion that there are no gray spacemen. Gray spacemen just happen to be in green light all the time, but in X-files, there were gray spacemen in 1994, and that proves that gray spacemen do exist.

No disrespect to green spacemen, they are also pretty neat, gray ones are just better.

[SeanValen]

Originally posted by giacomo
I don't think that the rating of Brundle (who was partial in his function as Coulthards manager) is very decisive in this question.

Much more decisive are the facts, i.e. the lap times.
Here we have two standards to rate the qualifying speed of Schumacher and Hakkinen: Herbert and Brundle.

Here are the results of the practice duels:
Lotus 1991: Hakkinen - Herbert 3-5 / average difference 0,231 sec
Benetton 1992: Schumacher - Brundle 16-0 / average difference 1,019 sec
Lotus 1992: Hakkinen - Herbert 7-9 / average difference 0,126 sec
Benetton 1994: Schumacher - Herbert 14-0 / average difference 3,05 sec
McLaren 1994: Hakkinen - Brundle 15-0 / average difference 0,77 sec


These figures makes it hard to claim that Hakkinen was faster than Schumacher.

Perception changes over time, as soon as Michael got a consistent ferrari in 2000, unlike 98/99, he poled more then Mika.......

And the great championship showdown track, Japan, 98/99/2000/2001, Michael poled all those Suzukas, Mika didn't.. Mika was fast, when he had the car, and so was Michael in qualifying when the ferrari started actually being cabable of catching mclaren. What's clear is Michael didn't lack speed over one lap to Mika, only that sometimes Mika could match Michael at times in the dry only only.

One of the best qualifying laps of 2000 was likely Hockenheim, when MS improved his time near the end, despite doing it in the wet, and everyone wondered how did he do that, I don't see Mika doing stuff like that, tis what made MS better in quali and the races sometimes, because he can find grip, a little bit more, and more consistently.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Arrow


Err the above is fact. Over the entire season 1992 the average qualifying gap between Michael and Brundle was 1.1 seconds, compared the 0.7 with Mika in 1994. Thats fact and has been know for many years, I thought you knew that.

If you dont believe it go and work it out yourself.

Now that I have explained to you the above is actual fact, has your opinion changed on Brundles view?

No I wasn't aware that "the above is actual fact"
What I was aware of was that you had made a direct 'copy & paste' of the statement by 'dde', in post #18.
That was what I questioned.

So, what you are doing now is using Brundle's performance, against his respective team-mates in 1992 and 1994, to compare the performance of MS and MH.
So you accept that his performance is 'relative', but then chose to discard his opinion as irrelevant, and substitute YOURS.

Sorry, but I'm sticking with Brundle's opinion.
I honestly think he knows more about those two F1 drivers than you ever will, no matter how many statistics you quote to me.

If you think Brundle is an idiot, and doesn't have a clue about what he's saying, then for God's sake, TELL HIM!
All I'm saying is that I believe HIM, and NOT YOU!
Take it up with him, and see how far your 'facts' get you.
It's NOT my opinion, it's HIS.
And I believe HIM.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by SeanValen
Perception changes over time, as soon as Michael got a consistent ferrari in 2000, unlike 98/99, he poled more then Mika.......

Especially the perception of several people who are busy since years to create arguments to detract from the qualities of a certain German multiple F1 World Champion. Instead of accepting reality as it is.

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Milt
Sorry, but I'm sticking with Brundle's opinion.
I honestly think he knows more about those two F1 drivers than you ever will, no matter how many statistics you quote to me.

If you think Brundle is an idiot, and doesn't have a clue about what he's saying, then for God's sake, TELL HIM!
All I'm saying is that I believe HIM, and NOT YOU!
Take it up with him, and see how far your 'facts' get you.
It's NOT my opinion, it's HIS.
And I believe HIM.

Nobody called Brundle an idiot.
Only Brundles public rating of Schumachers and Hakkinens speed is irrelevant, as Brundle was not neutral - as Coulthards manager it was his task to upgrade Hakkinens speed to avoid damage for Coulthards image.

The lap times in contrast are neutral.

[Milt]

Originally posted by giacomo
Nobody called Brundle an idiot.
Only Brundles public rating of Schumachers and Hakkinens speed is irrelevant, as Brundle was not neutral - as Coulthards manager it was his task to upgrade Hakkinens speed to avoid damage for Coulthards image.

The lap times in contrast are neutral.

Okay, so Brundle is NOT an idiot.

But you seem to be saying that he deliberately, and knowingly, disseminated 'mis-information' about the relatve merits of MS and MH, in order to "avoid damage for Coulthards image" ???

And yet, in another quote from that same interview...

"Let me put it this way. Of all the drivers I've raced against, the best was Senna. No question. In terms of the whole package, Michael runs him pretty close, with Mika a close third. In terms of raw, God-given talent, Senna is still number one but it's Mika, not Michael, who comes closest"

Now he's got Mika in third place, (as a 'package'), but that doesn't jibe with your assertion about "avoid damage for Coulthards image"

[giacomo]

Originally posted by Milt
Okay, so Brundle is NOT an idiot.

But you seem to be saying that he deliberately, and knowingly, disseminated 'mis-information' about the relatve merits of MS and MH, in order to "avoid damage for Coulthards image" ???

As the facts (=lap times) are contradicting with his rating... maybe his perception was affected by the years gone by.

Originally posted by Milt
And yet, in another quote from that same interview...

"Let me put it this way. Of all the drivers I've raced against, the best was Senna. No question. In terms of the whole package, Michael runs him pretty close, with Mika a close third. In terms of raw, God-given talent, Senna is still number one but it's Mika, not Michael, who comes closest"

Now he's got Mika in third place, (as a 'package'), but that doesn't jibe with your assertion about "avoid damage for Coulthards image"

I also doubt the ultimate truth of this other Brundle quote: Brundle also raced against Lauda, Piquet and Prost.
Where are they in his rating?
Maybe his perception was affected by the years gone by - once again.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Milt
No I wasn't aware that "the above is actual fact"
What I was aware of was that you had made a direct 'copy & paste' of the statement by 'dde', in post #18.
That was what I questioned.

It saved me some typing.

Originally posted by Milt

So, what you are doing now is using Brundle's performance, against his respective team-mates in 1992 and 1994, to compare the performance of MS and MH.
So you accept that his performance is 'relative', but then chose to discard his opinion as irrelevant, and substitute YOURS.

Thats what most intelligent people would do. Brundle is the benchmark that you compare the two drivers with. Perfeclty logical and carries more weight than a mere opinion.

Originally posted by Milt

Sorry, but I'm sticking with Brundle's opinion.
I honestly think he knows more about those two F1 drivers than you ever will, no matter how many statistics you quote to me.

Thats because your biased. Biased people ignore things they dont like, no matter how blatant it is.
You true colours are showing.

Im not letting you off that easy though. I want you to explain, if your opinion of course, why the figures show that a rookie Schumacher was far quicker relative to Brundle, than an experienced Mika.

Originally posted by Milt

If you think Brundle is an idiot, and doesn't have a clue about what he's saying, then for God's sake, TELL HIM!
All I'm saying is that I believe HIM, and NOT YOU!
Take it up with him, and see how far your 'facts' get you.
It's NOT my opinion, it's HIS.
And I believe HIM.

You believe him because he agrees with you, not because his opinion carries any weight. If he said Michael was faster, and the numbers showed Mika was faster, you would not agree with him.

Im not saying hes stupid. Im saying hes biased and mistaken. Im sure you would agree that opinion is subjective, while real life data isnt.

Btw, are you aware that in 1994, (while he was mikas team mate) Brundle said that he felt Michael was faster than Senna?

[baddog]

Originally posted by Milt
Okay, so Brundle is NOT an idiot.

Neither is he an infallible deity either. Just because he once teamed with these people, does not mean his opinion is rock solid fact (you can find teammates who will say wildly contradictory things about people they once drove with, which teammate is right?)

Shaun

[Milt]

Originally posted by Arrow

Thats because your biased. Biased people ignore things they dont like, no matter how blatant it is.
You true colours are showing.

Im not letting you off that easy though. I want you to explain, if your opinion of course, why the figures show that a rookie Schumacher was far quicker relative to Brundle, than an experienced Mika.

You believe him because he agrees with you, not because his opinion carries any weight. If he said Michael was faster, and the numbers showed Mika was faster, you would not agree with him.

Im not saying he's stupid. Im saying hes biased and mistaken. Im sure you would agree that opinion is subjective, while real life data isnt.

So, now I'm 'biased', Brundle is also 'biased', AND "mistaken", that his opinion carries no weight, and that the only reason I believe him, over you, is because he agrees with me.

Arrow, you are so far away from the truth, that it scares me.

I believe Brundle, simply because HE WAS a Formula 1 driver, for several years.
Never even considered as one of the 'great ones', but HE WAS an F1 pilot.
He is now, (I believe) a well respected commentator of F1, on ITV

Please correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think you have ever been close enough to an F1 car that you could actually reach out and touch it.
Much less sit in one.

Can you not understand that, to me, your OPINION , (which you are totally welcome to have), is NOT worth the square-root of diddley-squat, zip, nada, zilch, S.F.A., compared to Brundle's ???
Not to me.
It's as simple as that.