Schumacher wasnt as bad as you all thought?

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by chunder

He was still a ruthless competitor. Some people think that makes guys like him Senna and Vettel great.

Nobody thinks that. People think he was great despite being ruthless. You can remove the entire 1994, 1997 and 2006 F1 seasons from Schumacher's record and he would still the most successful driver in F1 history.

[chris bailey]

I loved the interview Lewis gave , post race, in Barcelona. It's beginning to dawn on him that Mercedes still can't get a grip on the tyre issues, and that if a seven-times World Champion with an awesome reputation for developing winning cars never did, what chance does he have.....? Bet Jenson was smiling just a little as he passed him on Sunday.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Bononi

Davyboy, I was missing you in this thread !

Do we have a member called 'the point'?

[Paradise City]

Personally I'd love if Schumacher came back AGAIN, lol, but I know that's as about as likely as Keke lining up alongside his son on the grid in 2014.

Schumacher has tasted being past his peak, it's literally the last experience he'd want again. Being on par or even better than Rosberg was fine but he wanted to beat the top dogs and that just didn't happen.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Do we have a member called 'the point'?

Well, if not, we should have...

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

Sure, what else would he say? There was Alonso's ill fated McLaren season so he has to talk Hamilton up because it in return elevates himself. This is the driver who twitters the s**t out of cheesy Samurai quotes and talks the Ferrari down to no end. It's the car that deals the best with the tires, Ferrari scored 1-3. But he has to say something like 'the car is c**p but everybody here works so hard to make it faster' and he probably thinks it makes him sound like a team player or something. I think it makes him look like he suffers from profile neurosis. Another factor may be the hope to unsettle his rivals, in particular Vettel. Alonso is not ashamed to say things like his real opponent is Newey, so he talks Vettel down by naming Hamilton his only true rival in terms of ability. I wonder what would happen if the Mercedes suddenly became a championship contender, who would Alonso then choose to be his greatest rival?

Do you even believe what you've written?

Originally Posted by Beryl

So now it seems racers become "great drivers" because of their manners, not their abilities?

Not necessarily manners, but there is a certain tact needed to be a good/great racing driver.

Originally Posted by chunder

Lol Massa fan, Schuey won a wet race in a car with a very basic form on traction control, hardly a mighty win, but a very good one

What are you talking about?

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

this thread should be about the 2004 French GP.

stuck in second and in a car potentially slower than the Renault, the brain trust at Ferrari asked MS to do work completely outside of the box...switch to a four stop race and drive like mad.

naturally he accomplished this through a combination of fast laps, efficient pit stops, and blindingly quick in and out laps.

probably not a race anyone even thinks of anymore but after watching a 4 pit stop victory i couldnt help but think back.

So what you are saying is, one of Schu's better wins wasn't directly due to his driving?

So what you are saying is, despite driving a fundamentally better car and benefitting from an extra 10 years experience, the brains trust at Ferrari didn't trust Schu to be able to use his " driving abilities" to genuinely pass Alonso on the track, when 75% of the race was still to be run?

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Alonso, and the other top contenders, drove solid races yesterday but they all did so without the necessity of having to do something great.

Alonso stopped 4 times and never once had to put in a great in or out lap and why should he have? his in laps were against cars on equally old tires which themselves were rapidly approaching the same cliff he just under cut by coming in one lap earlier. then his out lap was on a tire designed to be around a seconds a lap faster.

where is the skill in that? the driver simply didnt have to do much to be great so basically just not binning it was the standard for greatness yesterday.

Originally Posted by F1Pete

Chilli, I remember that 4 pitstop race that MS did. He would come flying into the pitlane and lock up the tires right up to the speed limit line. He would always do that...brake hard to the pit line. I see no evidence of that today. Driver's just come cruising into the pitlane at the same speed over the line already at the speed limit.

Any of you noticing something wrong with your posts?

Don't worry, I'll tell you. What is inherently wrong with your posts, is that you are impressed by a non-skill, that being an "in/out lap". Think about it? "Wow! What a great in/out lap!" "Did you see Schumacher??? Wow! He really attacked that pit lane entry!" The fact that this was a significant factor in determining track position (therefore, often the results too) is a reflection of the lower standards of driving needed to win or get a good result, at that time.

Personally, I think 4 stops in a race is beyond a joke. However, being able to extend tyre life is a reflection of a better driver and/or car (this applies to fuel as well). Possibly, this may be why Schu wasn't rated as highly as Frentzen and Wendlinger at Mercedes in Sports-prototypes.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

However, being able to extend tyre life is a reflection of a better driver and/or car (this applies to fuel as well). Possibly, this may be why Schu wasn't rated as highly as Frentzen and Wendlinger at Mercedes in Sports-prototypes.

I often find myself defending Schumacher on here, but it's fairly easy because the results are pretty difficult to argue against. But I'm not sure I understand the direction of your posts. Are you trying to convince everyone that he was average, mediocre or something worse ?

[chunder]

Thing is with threads like this you end up banging your head against a wall, because most of the points you bring up to attack a driver or somehting, are then turned on their head by their fans to say thats exactly why they are the best

I dont think there is any doubt Schumacher was very good. Would he have won against the 80's pack? I dont know, he certainly beat allcomers, but sadly his career early on was tainted by rumours of cheating cars, then he was at his mercurial best against McLAren and Williams in the Ferrari, and then he went on a wining spree that threatened to tarnish F1 in its boredam!

And new rules were brought in to try and prevfent this happening and make running F1 cheaper lol!

His comeback was a selfish thing to do, he knew he would get a ride anywhere, and he needed to know, he found out and left a happy man no doubt.

He didnt prove much to me, other than he was still dirty, still quick and still didnt know how to buy clothes!

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by chunder

Thing is with threads like this you end up banging your head against a wall, because most of the points you bring up to attack a driver or somehting, are then turned on their head by their fans to say thats exactly why they are the best

That's the problem when people have different opinions

[bella]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Don't worry, I'll tell you. What is inherently wrong with your posts, is that you are impressed by a non-skill, that being an "in/out lap". Think about it? "Wow! What a great in/out lap!" "Did you see Schumacher??? Wow! He really attacked that pit lane entry!" The fact that this was a significant factor in determining track position (therefore, often the results too) is a reflection of the lower standards of driving needed to win or get a good result, at that time.

on that basis, would you say that a team being able to get a pitstop down to 3 seconds from 4 is also a "non-skill"? is it not just shifting the expectations of that area of a race? perhaps you mean "non critical skill"?

if what you mean is that it's something that doesn't decide whether a driver is great or not, i respectfully disagree. it's a demonstration of attention to detail, and that DOES make a great driver.

[Paradise City]

Why is it when Shoemaker is mentioned it always turns into a forum barfight?

Personally I wouldn't have it any other way. If we all agreed on Schumacher I'd feel short changed.

[bella]

if we all agreed on schumacher then you'd know that not a single person actually watched him race

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Any of you noticing something wrong with your posts?

we should have used more bold type for certain parts of our posts to spare you the trouble of having to add it in yourself?

after watching a race where the winner used a 4 stop strategy to win, my memory naturally took me to another race where the winner used a 4 stop strategy. i realize now how that was inherently wrong. thanks.

anyways i really do appreciate the skill from in/out laps so i am like 'wow'. i almost always watch races with the aid of the live timing screens so from that its clear that the difference in these kinds of races are found in the details. those few seconds during in/out laps while the driver tries to extract all the possible life out of their tires is where victory is found.

you can say it was a car advantage but at the same time if MS competitors, including his team mate, were better at finding those few extra tenths here and there maybe things would have been a little less one sided.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Any of you noticing something wrong with your posts?

They're too complicated for you?

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Any of you noticing something wrong with your posts?

Don't worry, I'll tell you.

No, I'm good thanks.

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Why is it when Shoemaker is mentioned it always turns into a forum barfight?

Oh you don't know half about, you were still not around here when he was at the top, the forum was always torn apart and I forgot how many I had to ban because of dog fights...

[Beryl]

Originally Posted by chunder

but sadly his career early on was tainted by rumours of cheating cars,

This I don't understand. I'm sure the rumours would taint the victories of the Benetton team, but I can't see how that changes our view of how Schumacher performed. Whether the car was legal or illegal, it still seemed slower than the Williams and it did not seem to help Verstappen or Herbert much either. Benetton may have cheated, but Schumacher still drove the same courses as the rest of the field, without the best car (for the most part), and still won two titles.

[Razzzor]

Originally Posted by Beryl

This I don't understand. I'm sure the rumours would taint the victories of the Benetton team, but I can't see how that changes our view of how Schumacher performed. Whether the car was legal or illegal, it still seemed slower than the Williams and it did not seem to help Verstappen or Herbert much either. Benetton may have cheated, but Schumacher still drove the same courses as the rest of the field, without the best car (for the most part), and still won two titles.

Not only that, but he was dominating the field. Even if he didn't have traction control, he still would have been at the front. He lapped the entire field at round 1 in 1994, and lapped everyone twice up to 5th place. In the 2nd race he lapped everyone except Berger, who was only a few seconds from going a lap down as well, and put 6th place 3 laps down. Race 3 was bit closer with the runner up 55 seconds behind him.

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by bella

on that basis, would you say that a team being able to get a pitstop down to 3 seconds from 4 is also a "non-skill"?

Yes. I think saying Ferrari were a good/smart/clever team is more accurate.

Originally Posted by bella

is it not just shifting the expectations of that area of a race? perhaps you mean "non critical skill"?

Damn right it's shifting the expectations of that area of a race. Not for the better as well.

When you get to the stage where a pit entry is a feature of the race, where fans are lamenting how current drivers approach the pit lane and think back to the "glory days" of when Schu used to attack a pit entrance, it is a reflection to that the F1 industry has lost the plot. It fine to respect Schu/Ferrari for thoroughness, you and others can go on all day about it. I might read it, but then I'd move on. But when fans start to use pit entry/exit laps as a means to judge one driver to another, I think "You have got to be kidding???" That's where the line gets drawn for me. In a pit lane entrance (a good one) you are not going at full bore in the first place, so I can't be a massive test of driving. It should be a minor consideration, if at all.

On the other hand, any car/driver that has a tendency to allow tyres to last longer, is actually a good/better car/driver. This applies to any form of driving

Originally Posted by bella

if what you mean is that it's something that doesn't decide whether a driver is great or not, i respectfully disagree. it's a demonstration of attention to detail, and that DOES make a great driver.

I would swap the word "driver" for "competitor".

[beau1]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

On the other hand, any car/driver that has a tendency to allow tyres to last longer, is actually a good/better car/driver. This applies to any form of driving

.

What about a driver that gets the most out of their tyres at the right times? And does this three/four times in a race?
That is all Schumacher/Ferrari used to do. They knew the limits just the same as a driver that is good on their tyres know how to save them and knows the limits today. The main difference is that tyres are now manufactured for excitement and 'the show' whereas ten years ago the focus was upon refueling strategy and knowing when to use tyres that had loads of life left in them.

Surely a driver that knows when to put in the fast laps (and puts them in faster than anyone else) is just as good as someone that trundles around and makes up time by not stopping?

[beau1]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

When you get to the stage where a pit entry is a feature of the race, where fans are lamenting how current drivers approach the pit lane and think back to the "glory days" of when Schu used to attack a pit entrance, it is a reflection to that the F1 industry has lost the plot.

It's fine. A month ago you had fans lamenting over the "glory days" of Fangio and Moss and how gentlemanly agreements somehow equated to being a good and fair racer.

The F1 industry has always lost the plot and has made no effort to find it again...if you could tell me what the "plot" in the first place was it would be a good start.

[Kempi]

In a pit lane entrance (a good one) you are not going at full bore in the first place, so I can't be a massive test of driving.

Full bore is the maximum speed possible at any given part of the track. During refueling times, any driver not going full bore in the pit lane entrance and exit lost valuable time and therefore showed less race intelligence, hence one part of a modern driver skill. Any driver that could push "full bore" to be 2-3/10s quicker than others in that exercise showed more driving skill.

I am not doubting that making tires last is also a great skill. But saying pit lane entrance is not, kind of misses the point of racing as hard and as fast as possible. Different times required different skills. The people maximizing their performance in the required fields of racing in their era are the best drivers. Therefore I quite agree with anyone saying a driver going up to the very last inch until the speed limit as fast as possible were a sight to see - even though I always preferred a pass for a lead (like MSC on Alesi at Nürburgring in 95 or Hakkinen on MSC at Spa) any time. I could get my enjoyment out of tactical battels as well, though. I was on the edge of my seat for all of the Suzuka 2000 race despite no "real" passing for the lead.

[Knowlesy]

Was Schumacher ever thought of as bad?

His first career was amazing (with some dodginess) and he left at the right time.

His second career was an absolute farce.

Absolutely nothing needs to be re-evaluated. And Rosberg is driving better this season than he did last IMO, making the comparisons a bit more complex. He has raised his game.

[beau1]

I understand what you're saying knowsley but what evidence is there to prove your last point?

In my assessment, Rosberg raised his game in 10' to make a returning 7 times champion look average. It is entirely possible he's at the same level now.j