Michael Schumacher penalised

[i4n]

It's obvious you're a Schumi fan then Nick..........

I think myself I would be a fan if he cleaned up his act (I suppose I've never forgiven him for punting Hill off to stop him winning the title) or when he was wrong/dirty admited it. This latest incident has highlighted this - it's fair to give people just enough room but in this case there wasn't; if the wheels hadn't of been interlocked Rubens would have been in the wall and becuase they were, Rubens couldn't back off from the pass. Only now he has come out saying he was 'a bit hard' on him.

That is something other good and hard drivers have done (Senna even announced publically that he wasn't going to brake for the first corner in Japan, then didn't punting Prost off!).

I do think he's a good driver though - I remember when he had that Ferrari stuck in 5th gear and still placed well in the race; I doubt anyone else on the grid could do something like that now.

[Shaun 'TheSheep' Atkinson]

Just face it, Schumacher is a T***!!
He's dangerous, clumsy, mardy, arrogant and big headed.

I agree with the comment about it being Ross Brawn who who brought him 90% of his success! I'm not just saying it because i don't like him either, it's a fact!

I don't like Alonso either, BUT i wont take it away from him he is a good driver!

It would be intresting to start a poll and keep it simple to see who thinks Schumacher is the best.

[SlowOne]

Originally Posted by Nick Goodall

Does NOBODY equally remember what a shambles Ferrari were when MS joined them??? That first year alone he managed to get some seriously impressive results including a couple of wins with an absolute DOG of a car - He and Ross Brawn completely changed the mental attitude at Ferrari - It was a team where if the car went out due to a failure, the first thing they would do was find who was at fault and fire them there and then..... This was changed significantly when Michael arrived, they went to a we Win together, we lose together team and it didn't take long to start winning.

People bitch and moan about Ferrari using an unlimited budget, but how "limited" do you really thing the likes of Mclaren & Williams were at the time? They were all throwing obscene amounts at the sport and that's never changed.

You also forget that the Williams car in 1994-1997 was by far the best car of the lot but Michael still managed to beat them and if not at least take the title to the wire most seasons with (particularly the Ferrari) a far from superior car.

I don't think anyone has the right to say he was only 10% responsible for his own success, no matter how good the car was he would still have to drive it - That's no different to saying any World Champion was only 10% of the package, you could even say that in R/C but this is just never the case. Fair enough you have to have a good car to win, but Top drivers ALWAYS shine through and win in the end and i will never ever not believe Michael is simply one of the best F1 drivers of all time.

I can't believe how much hatred people have for him, i know he's done a fair few controversial things in his career but anyone who loves the sport should be able to appreciate anyone with as much talent as he's got, even if you don't like him as a person.

Some stats that are impossible to argue with:

Consecutive Seasons with a win: 1992-2006 - How can anyone say that is all because he had a better car then everyone else? He won at least one race EVERY season from 1992-2006?? That's incredible!

Championship Titles: 7 - No way on earth could this ALL be down to 10% of his input, it's just not possible.

Race Wins: 91 - 91!!!!!!!

Wins at same GP: 8 in France - He won the French Grand Prix 8 TIMES, how can anyone argue this stuff.... it's embarrassing lol.

And one last statistic - number of times penalised or disqualified for dangerous driving - 3. Every other GP driver in the history of the sport - nil. It's embarrassing...

[Nick Goodall]

Originally Posted by SlowOne

And one last statistic - number of times penalised or disqualified for dangerous driving - 3. Every other GP driver in the history of the sport - nil. It's embarrassing...

That doesn't really take away any of the facts of his success though, i just literally can't understand people saying 90% of his success was down to the car / team, how can that even be possible??

You could say that in any motorsport, but people rarely say Button only won last year because of his car or the same with Hill, Mansell, Villeneuve, Hakinen, Alonso - and in those cases, i think they're far more related to having the best car at the time.

Schumacher lapped everyone up to 3rd place in one wet race, when was the last time anyone did that?

[bodgit]

Originally Posted by Nick Goodall

Schumacher lapped everyone up to 3rd place in one wet race, when was the last time anyone did that?

I remember this in one wet race. DC did not swerve into him he kept the same distance from the line throughout the corner. Herr flick seemed to turn into DC . Wish they had let them fight after DC would have murdered him.

[Nick Goodall]

The race he won in the Wet lapping up to 3rd was Spanish GP in 1996 - His first win for Ferrari...

http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=eGNY...eature=related

That accident above was an odd one, either he suddenly caught the slipstream and couldn't see or DC just slowed down waaaay too much. I remember it though, that was where MS accused DC of trying to kill him That's what you call passion though, didn't see Ruebens doing any of that last week!

[telboy]

I could've brought the Spa incident up, but didn't because that was simply crap weather and shumi not being able to see DCs slower car. He did go off on one and blame DC for it, but to be honest neither was at fault. It happened to Senna in Australia when he plowed into brundle in the same way....but Senna didn't go storming off down the pit lane to punch Brundle.

To be honest last year it was all down to the fact that Button had THE best car for half the year. As soon as the other team caught up Button was no where, and I really lost the will to support him towards the end of the year and started supporting Barrichello more as he was doing a better job with what he had.
So that proves how much the car and team is the winning combination.

Don't get me wrong, when they build next years merc around schumi he will probably rise to the forefront again, which again will show that it is the car and team that make the difference to wether a driver can win or not.

BUT, a brilliant driver can make a bad/average car a winning car, as Senna used to. Schumacher struggled to do that. Which is why he moved Ross brawn and all the other members of the Benetton technical team over to Ferrari when he moved there.

He is obviously a good driver otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. But THE best, I don't think so, no matter what the statistics say.

Just my opinion.

[Nick Goodall]

Originally Posted by telboy

I could've brought the Spa incident up, but didn't because that was simply crap weather and shumi not being able to see DCs slower car. He did go off on one and blame DC for it, but to be honest neither was at fault. It happened to Senna in Australia when he plowed into brundle in the same way....but Senna didn't go storming off down the pit lane to punch Brundle.

To be honest last year it was all down to the fact that Button had THE best car for half the year. As soon as the other team caught up Button was no where, and I really lost the will to support him towards the end of the year and started supporting Barrichello more as he was doing a better job with what he had.
So that proves how much the car and team is the winning combination.

Don't get me wrong, when they build next years merc around schumi he will probably rise to the forefront again, which again will show that it is the car and team that make the difference to wether a driver can win or not.

BUT, a brilliant driver can make a bad/average car a winning car, as Senna used to. Schumacher struggled to do that. Which is why he moved Ross brawn and all the other members of the Benetton technical team over to Ferrari when he moved there.

He is obviously a good driver otherwise he wouldn't be where he is. But THE best, I don't think so, no matter what the statistics say.

Just my opinion.

Nicely put Tel, i don't think these days anyone can make a bad car capable of winning though, i can't even remember the last time anyone really outperformed their car, people say Kubica has done it at Renault but i think Hungary proved with Petrov getting 6th that the car has always been good enough this year...

Schumacher definitely did it at Ferrari for those first few seasons, winning races that the Williams car was far more capable of doing so - I know they eventually became almost unbeatable but he still has some amazing drives and results with a couple of really bad cars....

I don't actually think he's the outright best ever, there's too many drivers to consider for that title and we'll never really know as hardly any of them got to compete against eachother - I just don't agree that he's "average" or only 10% of the package that won so many world titles, that is really just an insult to most F1 fans if you ask me - Why bother watching a sport if you honestly believe the driver is only 10% of it?

Why not take them out altogether and have the cars guided by Sat Nav?

I agree only a very good car can win these days, the Red Bull is far superior to the Mclaren at the moment but Lewis is just about hanging on to them through some great driving and generally being consitent - i still think he's got a good chance of winning this championship, and that would be a great achievement with this car but the car certainly isn't as slow as the Renault, Mercedes, Sauber, Torro Rosso, HRT, Virgin etc.... Nobody no matter how good they are would win in any of these on a regular basis (i.e unless there's freak weather, a big crash or something)!

[SHY]

Schumi is a dirty winner and a bad looser!

He was my favorite driver until he deliberately crashed into Villeneuve in 97 in the last race to try and win the championship... I just couldn't accept that. Everybody wants to win... but we have rules and sportsmanship to take into consideration.

No matter how many records he holds I'll only remember him for holding the record for being the most arrogant F1 driver of all time!

[telboy]

Agreed Nick, These days the cars have SO much downforce that even an average car struggles against a very good one if it doesn't have the downforce.
Back in the 80's./90's they had little downforce and so it was all about chassis and mechanical grip....and driver talent. So there was more chance of a mid-bottom grid car to have good results....like the Minardi in the hands of Pier Luigi Martini, who had some awesome races with a bit of a shed....and the Leyton house car, under powered but had an awesome Adrian Newey designed chassis.
....Also the Lotus in the hands of Senna.

but that is what made that era so exciting as it was so close.

[Razer]

Originally Posted by Nick Goodall

Nicely put Tel, i don't think these days anyone can make a bad car capable of winning though, i can't even remember the last time anyone really outperformed their car, people say Kubica has done it at Renault but i think Hungary proved with Petrov getting 6th that the car has always been good enough this year...

Schumacher definitely did it at Ferrari for those first few seasons, winning races that the Williams car was far more capable of doing so - I know they eventually became almost unbeatable but he still has some amazing drives and results with a couple of really bad cars....

I don't actually think he's the outright best ever, there's too many drivers to consider for that title and we'll never really know as hardly any of them got to compete against eachother - I just don't agree that he's "average" or only 10% of the package that won so many world titles, that is really just an insult to most F1 fans if you ask me - Why bother watching a sport if you honestly believe the driver is only 10% of it?

Why not take them out altogether and have the cars guided by Sat Nav?

I agree only a very good car can win these days, the Red Bull is far superior to the Mclaren at the moment but Lewis is just about hanging on to them through some great driving and generally being consitent - i still think he's got a good chance of winning this championship, and that would be a great achievement with this car but the car certainly isn't as slow as the Renault, Mercedes, Sauber, Torro Rosso, HRT, Virgin etc.... Nobody no matter how good they are would win in any of these on a regular basis (i.e unless there's freak weather, a big crash or something)!

About that, Petrov is said to be all mob money. He may be, but I would guess that mob dude saw his talent, because he's really done a good job this year.

A few other guys that do impress me are the Sauber boys

[SlowOne]

Originally Posted by Nick Goodall

That doesn't really take away any of the facts of his success though, i just literally can't understand people saying 90% of his success was down to the car / team, how can that even be possible??

You could say that in any motorsport, but people rarely say Button only won last year because of his car or the same with Hill, Mansell, Villeneuve, Hakinen, Alonso - and in those cases, i think they're far more related to having the best car at the time.

Schumacher lapped everyone up to 3rd place in one wet race, when was the last time anyone did that?

HE wasn't great, he was successful. Like all successful drivers he put in a few awesome performances. However...

He started getting good once the great drivers had gone - Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet et al - and there was no one even close to his ability or his team's budget until Alonso came along. Faced with one really good driver, the WCs dried up. All the above-mentioned were teamed with each other at some time, and they won despite that. I just don't think that you can ever call him great, whatever the numbers say.

Originally Posted by telboy

Agreed Nick, These days the cars have SO much downforce that even an average car struggles against a very good one if it doesn't have the downforce.
Back in the 80's./90's they had little downforce and so it was all about chassis and mechanical grip....and driver talent. So there was more chance of a mid-bottom grid car to have good results....like the Minardi in the hands of Pier Luigi Martini, who had some awesome races with a bit of a shed....and the Leyton house car, under powered but had an awesome Adrian Newey designed chassis.
....Also the Lotus in the hands of Senna.

but that is what made that era so exciting as it was so close.

Beg to differ Tel, but not so as to make a thing of it! The original Lotus 79 generated about 2 tonnes of downforce what with its closed skirts and full body-length diffusers. The Williams FW08 was reckoned to surpass that. Over the years, the Rule changes have served to reduce that until the current reckoning is they generate about 1200kg.

Your point is still well made, but a bit in reverse??!! If one car generates 50kg more than another, today that is 4% more downforce, whereas in the 80s that would have been about 2.5% more. So although I would argue the total downforce is less, I do agree that the difference is more, and it makes more difference to lap times now than it did then.

What amazes me is that do far this year, most cars would have qualified even if we had a 107% rule. Try that at the average BRCA National in any class - more like 120% between top and bottom. Having said which, 7% over a 70-lap race like Hungary is almost five laps, so it's still a huge gap!!

[Nick Goodall]

Originally Posted by SlowOne

HE wasn't great, he was successful. Like all successful drivers he put in a few awesome performances. However...

He started getting good once the great drivers had gone - Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet et al - and there was no one even close to his ability or his team's budget until Alonso came along. Faced with one really good driver, the WCs dried up. All the above-mentioned were teamed with each other at some time, and they won despite that. I just don't think that you can ever call him great, whatever the numbers say.

He qualified 7th in his first race for Jordan, in a car far less superior - and that was with all these top drivers you mention? He was 3rd in his 2nd season of F1 behind the two Williams cars that had all the clever active suspension/downforce and paddle shifts etc.

He was 4th in his 3rd season and then started to dominate the next couple of years so i don't think he was only successful only once the good drivers had gone? That's basically saying that Hill, Villeneuve, Hakinen, Coulthard, Montoya, Berger, Alesi, Frentzen, Irvine, Barrichello, Fisichella etc were all just average Joe's then? Not comparable to Mansell, Piquet, Prost & Senna?

They were just a different generation, not really fair to say Michael didn't match up to them as he was a young gun in the early days of his career and those guys were all coming to the end - The drivers in his generation were all proved to be slower then him in my opinion.

I also think he would have been close to Senna in the 1994 season, it was shaping up to be a good battle between them and I would have loved to see them wheel to wheel as neither would have given in

[nicefrog]

No one that ever saw Shumacher race in his early day could possibly argue that he wasn't one of the best if not the best driver ever. I saw those years and that's why I will always show him the respect he deserves , I think everyone should do the same. Even a few years ago who were the only two drivers in the field during a pace car on a wet track that were game enough to have the traction control off and be snaking the car all over the track twice as wide as anyone else? thats right only Schumacher and Alonso were, simple little moments like those you see whos the best out there at the time.

I was a big Senna fan but it was blinding obvious to me right from the first few races Schumacher was in that he was the next great driver, he was just that much better then everyone else in the race other than Senna who I consider was his equal

[daz]

Im i wrong here, but on top gear it was proved that Schumacher was the stig. And didnt Barrachello beat the stigs time, and wasnt the stig a bit pissed. Just putting 2+2 together here guys

[Chrislong]

They did play it up to be Schumacher, but really it isn't. Its Ben Collins, google that name.

[daz]

Originally Posted by Chrislong

They did play it up to be Schumacher, but really it isn't. Its Ben Collins, google that name.

Is that Phil Collins, bro?

[DaveG28]

Actually, there's 5 or 6 different stigs...

[SlowOne]

Originally Posted by Nick Goodall

He qualified 7th in his first race for Jordan, in a car far less superior - and that was with all these top drivers you mention? He was 3rd in his 2nd season of F1 behind the two Williams cars that had all the clever active suspension/downforce and paddle shifts etc.

He was 4th in his 3rd season and then started to dominate the next couple of years so i don't think he was only successful only once the good drivers had gone? That's basically saying that Hill, Villeneuve, Hakinen, Coulthard, Montoya, Berger, Alesi, Frentzen, Irvine, Barrichello, Fisichella etc were all just average Joe's then? Not comparable to Mansell, Piquet, Prost & Senna?

Yup. That motley collection have amassed the precise sum of four WC titles between them, whereas the next four managed to garner eleven drivers titles whilst competing against each other. 'Nuff said...

Originally Posted by Nick Goodall

They were just a different generation, not really fair to say Michael didn't match up to them as he was a young gun in the early days of his career and those guys were all coming to the end - The drivers in his generation were all proved to be slower then him in my opinion.

I also think he would have been close to Senna in the 1994 season, it was shaping up to be a good battle between them and I would have loved to see them wheel to wheel as neither would have given in

So would I, but we didn't. I agree you can't compare generations - Schui is proving that right now by coming back into a very different situation with regards to Rules, downforce and tyres, and not being able to get the best from them. I always reckoned that Clark in a fully active Williams might have the same issue.

As your first paragraph shows, he was successful. However, he was unarguably racing at a time where there was no one, and no team with the money to make a car, to touch him. Once there was a car and driver to do it (Alonso and Renault) he didn't win a WC again.

If we're talking really, really good drivers, then Alonso deserves a mention. He just didn't put a wheel wrong last weekend in holding off a faster car. Whereas, let's remember, the reason Barrichello managed to get in the slipstream is that this (allegedly) great driver managed to screw up turn 13 and fail to get on the throttle properly. 'Nuff said...

[Nick Goodall]

Originally Posted by SlowOne

Yup. That motley collection have amassed the precise sum of four WC titles between them, whereas the next four managed to garner eleven drivers titles whilst competing against each other. 'Nuff said......

Yeah but that's because Michael was there winning the other 7 titles so how could they have managed more if they weren't simply as gifted as him? I don't believe any non-Great driver could win 7 titles in any top sport - I'm not saying i think he's the best, i just find it hard to understand how people can't see him as a great driver? Fair enough he's struggling now, but so is everyone outside of the Ferrari's, Red Bulls & Mclarens - If Micahel was at Mclaren and shadowing Lewis the same way Button is, people would be slating him saying Lewis is proving how past it Michael is etc, but because it's Button people just say they have different styles