planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: I think you miss the point of a top team like Williams signing Mansell when he was going to be 38, at 42 Mansell had got too fat to fit in the car which is kind of separate to him being merely seen as being to old to be fast.

You seem not to realise that i'm suggesting that it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's, what did Mercedes think they were going to be getting when they signed up a 41 year old Schumacher, like Mansell at McLaren was that just also done for commercial reasons?

Apart from that further things you want to bring forward for things not working out for Schumacher I see merely as excuses.

Above you are saying that "age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then". Now you are saying that I am not realising that "it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's". So which one is it, do they depreciate or not? Or this factor changes according to one's liking?

Schumacher came back rusty and without being allowed to test. Not even being able to use the simulator. It is to his credit as a top driver that after a couple of years he seemed to get the hang of Nico, which tells a lot. We know Nico raced against the best driver of our era now and indeed get a WDC. So using Rosberg as a yardstick, the old dog didn't do too bad. In fact, his biggest fault was quali, as in the race he seemed to be going forward as Nico always went backwards.

But I did not think that Schumacher would come back and get wins or anything. I am not sure about the excuses you keep banging on, he did as good as he could considering everything. I bet another driver over 40 at that time would not have fared that well. Does this make sense?

Someone else also posted this which I backed up and tried previously to say myself, in the past it was perhaps not appreciated at what age a driver might depreciate and that's why what happened to Schumacher was such a big surprise.

The other reasons given by you are are just speculation and perhaps all this testing that Schumacher needed was perhaps a weakness given that today's drivers make do without, as for simulator work I've heard it's still no match for the real thing, the reality of simulator work would suggest that Stroll is quicker than Ocon apparently?

Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

Which part is speculation?

Yeah, Schumacher could not do anything without unfair advantages, is that your angle? Really?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

Exediron wrote:

pokerman wrote:

aice wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

SlipstreamF1 wrote:Vettel had one bad year vs Ric.

How do you know it was a "bad year"? They only had 1 year together.

SlipstreamF1 wrote: We know Ric is nowhere near the driver Max is

Evidence?

SlipstreamF1 wrote: , so how did Ric beat Vettel if not for having a superior car? It's not uncommon for one car to be more unreliable than the other in the same team. Sometimes it's due to the driver's setup preferences and sometimes it's just bad luck (Vettel had an unreliable engine while Rics was above average in reliability).

Vettel had 3 retirements in 2014, Ricciardo 2 & a DQ. According to this website, Ricciardo suffered 6 penalties in 2014 while Vetel had 4.
https://www.racefans.net/statistics/201 ... penalties/

I will admit though that without going race by race, i'm unsure the exact nature of the penalties & the nature of the punishment imposed.

Iirc, in relation to each other, neither Vettel or Ricciardo suffered disproportionately in terms of poor reliability/penalties.

Using Mark Hughes' figures (his computations exclude sessions where direct comparisons can't be made e.g. due to reliability, penalties etc):

Race head-to-head: Vettel 3-8 Ricciardo
Qualifying: -0.298% (Ricciardo quicker)

Another interesting observation from Hughes (re Vettel deliberately underperforming):

"I have heard that conspiracy theory. But I don't buy it. I watched trackside through 2014 and saw with my own eyes how hard Vettel was trying. In fact probably too hard. I also spoke with the engineers who knew the data. He was driving out of his skin but Ricciardo was simply usually faster in that car at that time"

I don't understand these figures that Hughes comes up with they always seem to be over inflated and thus all over the place year on year, I had Ricciardo 0.17s quicker.

I think you're forgetting that Hughes uses percentage, not tenths of a second. It's more accurate because it's consistent across vastly different lap times (1 tenth at Austria is not the same thing as 1 tenth at Spa).

Whatever he does it seems to produce more inconsistent gaps between teammates.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: Above you are saying that "age didn't seem to be as much a factor back then". Now you are saying that I am not realising that "it perhaps was not fully appreciated how much a driver might depreciate when he gets into his 40's". So which one is it, do they depreciate or not? Or this factor changes according to one's liking?

Schumacher came back rusty and without being allowed to test. Not even being able to use the simulator. It is to his credit as a top driver that after a couple of years he seemed to get the hang of Nico, which tells a lot. We know Nico raced against the best driver of our era now and indeed get a WDC. So using Rosberg as a yardstick, the old dog didn't do too bad. In fact, his biggest fault was quali, as in the race he seemed to be going forward as Nico always went backwards.

But I did not think that Schumacher would come back and get wins or anything. I am not sure about the excuses you keep banging on, he did as good as he could considering everything. I bet another driver over 40 at that time would not have fared that well. Does this make sense?

Someone else also posted this which I backed up and tried previously to say myself, in the past it was perhaps not appreciated at what age a driver might depreciate and that's why what happened to Schumacher was such a big surprise.

The other reasons given by you are are just speculation and perhaps all this testing that Schumacher needed was perhaps a weakness given that today's drivers make do without, as for simulator work I've heard it's still no match for the real thing, the reality of simulator work would suggest that Stroll is quicker than Ocon apparently?

Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

Which part is speculation?

Yeah, Schumacher could not do anything without unfair advantages, is that your angle? Really?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

He made his mark in F1 on just one half day of testing competing on a track he'd never driven on before.

I've heard of the stopwatches but that related to Ferrari when he used to camp out at Fiorana for a few days.

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Someone else also posted this which I backed up and tried previously to say myself, in the past it was perhaps not appreciated at what age a driver might depreciate and that's why what happened to Schumacher was such a big surprise.

The other reasons given by you are are just speculation and perhaps all this testing that Schumacher needed was perhaps a weakness given that today's drivers make do without, as for simulator work I've heard it's still no match for the real thing, the reality of simulator work would suggest that Stroll is quicker than Ocon apparently?

Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

Which part is speculation?

Yeah, Schumacher could not do anything without unfair advantages, is that your angle? Really?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

He made his mark in F1 on just one half day of testing competing on a track he'd never driven on before.

I've heard of the stopwatches but that related to Ferrari when he used to camp out at Fiorana for a few days.

No it wasn't at Ferrari:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-n ... 296923daeb

As I said, talking nonsense.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:Which part is speculation?

Yeah, Schumacher could not do anything without unfair advantages, is that your angle? Really?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

He made his mark in F1 on just one half day of testing competing on a track he'd never driven on before.

I've heard of the stopwatches but that related to Ferrari when he used to camp out at Fiorana for a few days.

No it wasn't at Ferrari:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-n ... 296923daeb

As I said, talking nonsense.

His solution? More displays. Three of them, in fact.

“I suspect at this point we looked a bit puzzled,” Toet wrote. “So he explained what he wanted: ‘I’d like to keep the real-time speedo in the middle, where it is.



That Spanish drive mentioned in the article has got to be one of the greatest performances of an F1 driver ever.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

He made his mark in F1 on just one half day of testing competing on a track he'd never driven on before.

I've heard of the stopwatches but that related to Ferrari when he used to camp out at Fiorana for a few days.

No it wasn't at Ferrari:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-n ... 296923daeb

As I said, talking nonsense.

His solution? More displays. Three of them, in fact.

“I suspect at this point we looked a bit puzzled,” Toet wrote. “So he explained what he wanted: ‘I’d like to keep the real-time speedo in the middle, where it is.



That Spanish drive mentioned in the article has got to be one of the greatest performances of an F1 driver ever.

A very lucky one as explained, but yeah. For me the most impressive was that he managed a pit stop! Started from a standstill in 5th gear

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

I thought Schumacher impressively debuted with Jordan - and I also thought he did not have a lot of testing with them.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:
Also let's not forget that originally Schumacher entered F1 with just half a days testing in a F1 car and was an instant sensation in F1, the latter years Schumacher benefited from his own private test track and tyres that were bespoke to his liking, perhaps he had become reliant on such advantages?

It's speculation to how it might have affected his performance, the Schumacher that entered F1 in 1991 didn't need hours and hours of practice.

You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

I thought Schumacher impressively debuted with Jordan - and I also thought he did not have a lot of testing with them.

Debuted with Jordan, moved to Benetton

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

From edgecast.buscafs.com/www.levelup.com

dpastern wrote:... Vettel is not particularly good in the wet...

I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

I'm going to agree with this somewhat. I certainly think Schumacher sits within the top 3 who've I seen race, behind Senna & Prost, with Hamilton closing in very very rapidly & Alonso not far behind, but for me there's too many question hanging over any claim for him to be the G.O.A.T, ones that both Senna &, to a lesser extent Prost, answered.

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

I'm going to agree with this somewhat. I certainly think Schumacher sits within the top 3 who've I seen race, behind Senna & Prost, with Hamilton closing in very very rapidly & Alonso not far behind, but for me there's too many question hanging over any claim for him to be the G.O.A.T, ones that both Senna &, to a lesser extent Prost, answered.

While I'd agree that Schumacher might not have 7 titles now had Senna not had his accident, he was still the driver to beat for over a decade and he would have had more than just one or two titles IMO.

But Senna's death changed more than just the driver landscape. Without his accident, the cars might not have had the planks fitted, which means Schumacher would not have faced his DSQ in Spa, while the host of other car modifications demanded in the name of safety might also have not been implemented, which in turn means that the Williams may not have closed the gap to Benetton. All in all it points to Schumacher still winning his first title in 1994 and from there who knows what direction car development may have taken without the safety restrictions imposed upon them by Senna's death.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Siao7 wrote: You are talking nonsense now. You need to read how he spend hours and hours on the track, using famously the stopwatches that he asked Benetton to install on his steering wheel to perfect his cornering.

He made his mark in F1 on just one half day of testing competing on a track he'd never driven on before.

I've heard of the stopwatches but that related to Ferrari when he used to camp out at Fiorana for a few days.

No it wasn't at Ferrari:

https://www.foxsports.com.au/breaking-n ... 296923daeb

As I said, talking nonsense.

Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

well it was speed dials that "stopped" when they hit the fastest/slowest speed in the corners, so you weren't technically wrong!

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

well it was speed dials that "stopped" when they hit the fastest/slowest speed in the corners, so you weren't technically wrong!

Stopdials?

tootsie323 wrote:

dpastern wrote:... Vettel is not particularly good in the wet...

I'll play devil's advocate here and point out that his first wins, for both Torro Rosso and for Red Bull, were in wet conditions. I actually think that he is a pretty good wet weather driver.

He does seem to have lost that ability since coming to Ferrari, for some reason. I can't remember Vettel really looking good in the wet since he was at Red Bull.

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

Not changing much apart from me talking nonsense then?

Schumacher did use stopwatches when he drove for Ferrari, 3 watches tied to his steering wheel which he had to operate himself so he could have split times or corner times and somehow he could make sense of it all.

Schumacher very much just walked into F1, that's actually part of his legend, he had half a day testing in the Jordan at Silverstone were they told him to slow down because of the lap times he was doing they thought he was driving over his limit and was going to crash, but that wasn't the case at all.

He also conned them into believing that he knew the Spa track well with him living reasonably close to the circuit but he had in fact never driven on the track before. He qualified 7th about a second quicker than his experienced teammate and then immediately got snapped up by Benetton for the next race, all this with minimum track time.

As for what he did in testing with Benetton and Ferrari, the guy was a workaholic always wanting to improve himself, I read that despite all of his success he always doubted himself hence the need to always work hard.

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

well it was speed dials that "stopped" when they hit the fastest/slowest speed in the corners, so you weren't technically wrong!

Not technically wrong? ok.

There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Benetton and Schumacher were cheating for all of '94. Should have been DSQ for the entirety of '94 and stripped of all wins and points imho.

dpastern wrote:
Benetton and Schumacher were cheating for all of '94. Should have been DSQ for the entirety of '94 and stripped of all wins and points imho.

whatever you say.

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

Call it an intuitive judgment of experience. It was obvious that Senna was a massive talent in the wet from his Monaco '84 efforts (where he should have won, if not for political interference from FISA) Bellof too was mightily impressive in the wet. Anyone remember Vettel's superb effort in the Brasilian GP 2016? Oh what, that's right, it was pretty ordinary lol.

Exediron wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???

I don't think it's fair to say that it diminished Schumi's achievements, particularly considering what we now know about Rosberg, and how close Michael had come by 2012. It's very possible that if he had kept at it he would have beaten Rosberg in 2013 and beyond.

However, it did put the only real question mark on a spotless career: without Rosberg, Schumi was never beaten by a teammate, and nobody even really came close. Yes, it's easy to draw a line between his first and second careers, but the fact remains that without his comeback his reputation would be just that little bit more unimpeachable.

Paradoxically, I feel that if he had solidly beaten Rosberg, that would have actually enhanced his legacy significantly, establishing him firmly beyond any doubt as the greatest.

In all these arguments about Schumacher, no one seems to mention practice, MS practiced more than anyone, he had a house at Fiorana, would open his front door and be at the track, he got way more practice than any of his team mates, and all of his competition, on his return, whilst he was older, he didn't have the luxury of that practice, and it was well reported at the time that he had vertigo whilst in the simulator, so while I'm not diminishing his accomplishments, he was better than the rest because as well as talent(let’s face it all the top guys are talented and within a whisker of each other) he worked harder than anyone else, and skilfully negotiated a contract that allowed him to do that.

Reminds me of the time I think it was Jack Nicklaus, someone said you are so lucky to get all those shots so close to the hole, he said, that’s true, and the more I practice the luckier I get.

dpastern wrote:Call it an intuitive judgment of experience. It was obvious that Senna was a massive talent in the wet from his Monaco '84 efforts (where he should have won, if not for political interference from FISA) Bellof too was mightily impressive in the wet. Anyone remember Vettel's superb effort in the Brasilian GP 2016? Oh what, that's right, it was pretty ordinary lol.

The 2016 Brazilian GP was literally the only time Max has looked in that league. Yes, it was clear that Senna was a wet weather master from very early on, but the 1984 Monaco GP was far from a one-off. Every time it rained, Senna looked a class apart. The same cannot be said of Max. I don't think he reached the podium in any wet race in 2018, and was out-qualified by a Toro Rosso in wet qualifying at Hungary. Aside from Brazil, what was another superior wet weather drive from Max?

dpastern wrote:

Exediron wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Verstappen? Already? He's had one majorly impressive wet weather drive, and suddenly he's in a league with only Senna, Clark and Hamilton?

I think you're jumping the gun quite a lot on that one. Verstappen looks no more consistently impressive in the wet than Vettel.

Call it an intuitive judgment of experience. It was obvious that Senna was a massive talent in the wet from his Monaco '84 efforts (where he should have won, if not for political interference from FISA) Bellof too was mightily impressive in the wet. Anyone remember Vettel's superb effort in the Brasilian GP 2016? Oh what, that's right, it was pretty ordinary lol.

None of which goes any way towards validating any claim about Verstappen being a wet weather specialist.

I'd also have another look at Schumacher's wet weather skills too. He wasn't too shabby playing in the water.

I'd put him 2nd behind Senna as the best wet weather drivers i've seen.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

pokerman wrote: Were does it mention stopwatches or am I missing something?

The dials, showing speed or time. I remembered that it was stopwatches, I was wrong and it was speed dials. Not changing much though, the idea is that he spent time on track perfecting his skills. He didn't just walk into it in the first part of his career as you suggested.

well it was speed dials that "stopped" when they hit the fastest/slowest speed in the corners, so you weren't technically wrong!

Not technically wrong? ok.

A watch measures time. Clearly not a stopwatch as it measures speed.

Schumacher did have a stopwatch on his steering wheel, but only during qualifying/practise sessions. He would sync it with the session time so he knew exactly how long in the session was left. Quite a few drivers did this, most used basic casio’s.

pokerman wrote:Schumacher very much just walked into F1, that's actually part of his legend, he had half a day testing in the Jordan at Silverstone were they told him to slow down because of the lap times he was doing they thought he was driving over his limit and was going to crash, but that wasn't the case at all.

He also conned them into believing that he knew the Spa track well with him living reasonably close to the circuit but he had in fact never driven on the track before. He qualified 7th about a second quicker than his experienced teammate and then immediately got snapped up by Benetton for the next race, all this with minimum track time.

It wasn't Schumacher who bluffed his way into the Jordan seat, that was his manager's doing. When Gary Anderson asked him about it during that weekend, Schumacher replied he had never been there. Which, to my mind, makes your point about minimum track time even more valid. The fact that he found himself in a perfectly good car doesn't diminish that; Gachot had posted fastest lap at the Hungaroring the race before.

I don't know whether it was German fans who gave Vettel his early F1 nickname of "Baby-Schumi", but it certainly was fitting. And who's to tell what Vettel could do/could have done already, were he to have had the same kind of practicing advantage Schumacher enjoyed while at Ferrari?

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

I'm going to agree with this somewhat. I certainly think Schumacher sits within the top 3 who've I seen race, behind Senna & Prost, with Hamilton closing in very very rapidly & Alonso not far behind, but for me there's too many question hanging over any claim for him to be the G.O.A.T, ones that both Senna &, to a lesser extent Prost, answered.

While I'd agree that Schumacher might not have 7 titles now had Senna not had his accident, he was still the driver to beat for over a decade and he would have had more than just one or two titles IMO.

But Senna's death changed more than just the driver landscape. Without his accident, the cars might not have had the planks fitted, which means Schumacher would not have faced his DSQ in Spa, while the host of other car modifications demanded in the name of safety might also have not been implemented, which in turn means that the Williams may not have closed the gap to Benetton. All in all it points to Schumacher still winning his first title in 1994 and from there who knows what direction car development may have taken without the safety restrictions imposed upon them by Senna's death.

This is outside the subject of this thread; would it be worth making it into a thead of its own? Because I would like to hear how you conclude that Schumacher would have won the title in '94 anyway.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

I'm going to agree with this somewhat. I certainly think Schumacher sits within the top 3 who've I seen race, behind Senna & Prost, with Hamilton closing in very very rapidly & Alonso not far behind, but for me there's too many question hanging over any claim for him to be the G.O.A.T, ones that both Senna &, to a lesser extent Prost, answered.

While I'd agree that Schumacher might not have 7 titles now had Senna not had his accident, he was still the driver to beat for over a decade and he would have had more than just one or two titles IMO.

But Senna's death changed more than just the driver landscape. Without his accident, the cars might not have had the planks fitted, which means Schumacher would not have faced his DSQ in Spa, while the host of other car modifications demanded in the name of safety might also have not been implemented, which in turn means that the Williams may not have closed the gap to Benetton. All in all it points to Schumacher still winning his first title in 1994 and from there who knows what direction car development may have taken without the safety restrictions imposed upon them by Senna's death.

This is outside the subject of this thread; would it be worth making it into a thead of its own? Because I would like to hear how you conclude that Schumacher would have won the title in '94 anyway.

It's speculative, based on the idea that the safety modifications mandated after Senna's death had a significant impact on the cars (they were said to have reduced downforce by 15%) and helped Williams in making their car more competitive. E.g. according to the FW16B Wiki page "the shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned." Pre-changes the Benetton was superior, so maybe that wouldn't have been the case has Senna not had his accident. And as mentioned, MSC wouldn't have had his Spa DSQ, since there wouldn't have been a plank to wear down. And it's not too hard to imagine that Hill may not have out-qualified Schumacher by 0.003s in GB, for the same reasons already mentioned, which means Michael would not have had to sit out four races that year since he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake Hill on the formation lap. Butterfly effect and all that

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:

dpastern wrote:I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

I'm going to agree with this somewhat. I certainly think Schumacher sits within the top 3 who've I seen race, behind Senna & Prost, with Hamilton closing in very very rapidly & Alonso not far behind, but for me there's too many question hanging over any claim for him to be the G.O.A.T, ones that both Senna &, to a lesser extent Prost, answered.

While I'd agree that Schumacher might not have 7 titles now had Senna not had his accident, he was still the driver to beat for over a decade and he would have had more than just one or two titles IMO.

But Senna's death changed more than just the driver landscape. Without his accident, the cars might not have had the planks fitted, which means Schumacher would not have faced his DSQ in Spa, while the host of other car modifications demanded in the name of safety might also have not been implemented, which in turn means that the Williams may not have closed the gap to Benetton. All in all it points to Schumacher still winning his first title in 1994 and from there who knows what direction car development may have taken without the safety restrictions imposed upon them by Senna's death.

This is outside the subject of this thread; would it be worth making it into a thead of its own? Because I would like to hear how you conclude that Schumacher would have won the title in '94 anyway.

It's speculative, based on the idea that the safety modifications mandated after Senna's death had a significant impact on the cars (they were said to have reduced downforce by 15%) and helped Williams in making their car more competitive. E.g. according to the FW16B Wiki page "the shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned." Pre-changes the Benetton was superior, so maybe that wouldn't have been the case has Senna not had his accident. And as mentioned, MSC wouldn't have had his Spa DSQ, since there wouldn't have been a plank to wear down. And it's not too hard to imagine that Hill may not have out-qualified Schumacher by 0.003s in GB, for the same reasons already mentioned, which means Michael would not have had to sit out four races that year since he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake Hill on the formation lap. Butterfly effect and all that

What you're saying is that Williams benefitted from the imposed changes more than Benetton. I would say that, regardless of superiority/inferiority, both teams (and all others) were faced with additional work. And while it is true Benetton saw its superiority reduced, Williams had to try to claw back a comparable amount of downforce, while solving their continuing handling problem. I would say Williams had more work to do than Benetton.

How the rest of the season would have gone is indeed hard to imagine, and is to my mind largely dependant on whether Senna's accident would have injured him to the point of taking him out of the sport, or have left him intact at 30 points behind Schumacher, and 23 behind Hill. Had Senna indeed just walked away from the accident, then the work awaiting Williams would "simply" have been to cure the aerodynamics problem they were suffering from, with Senna on hand for testing alongside Hill. And perhaps the Benetton cheating would have been treated differently too; because apart from the electronics the Senna was suspicious of, there was also the fuel filter cheating issue. More than enough work for the FIA to have to get through.

Perhaps I should consider buying Adrian Newey's book on constructing a race car; it appears he describes a number of things touching on 1994. And there's also a book Willem Toet mentioned in his articles on 1994. I'll have to check which one that might be.

As I said before, the one person who could tell us so much more about Vettel's qualities, is Newey.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:
I'm going to agree with this somewhat. I certainly think Schumacher sits within the top 3 who've I seen race, behind Senna & Prost, with Hamilton closing in very very rapidly & Alonso not far behind, but for me there's too many question hanging over any claim for him to be the G.O.A.T, ones that both Senna &, to a lesser extent Prost, answered.

While I'd agree that Schumacher might not have 7 titles now had Senna not had his accident, he was still the driver to beat for over a decade and he would have had more than just one or two titles IMO.

But Senna's death changed more than just the driver landscape. Without his accident, the cars might not have had the planks fitted, which means Schumacher would not have faced his DSQ in Spa, while the host of other car modifications demanded in the name of safety might also have not been implemented, which in turn means that the Williams may not have closed the gap to Benetton. All in all it points to Schumacher still winning his first title in 1994 and from there who knows what direction car development may have taken without the safety restrictions imposed upon them by Senna's death.

This is outside the subject of this thread; would it be worth making it into a thead of its own? Because I would like to hear how you conclude that Schumacher would have won the title in '94 anyway.

It's speculative, based on the idea that the safety modifications mandated after Senna's death had a significant impact on the cars (they were said to have reduced downforce by 15%) and helped Williams in making their car more competitive. E.g. according to the FW16B Wiki page "the shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned." Pre-changes the Benetton was superior, so maybe that wouldn't have been the case has Senna not had his accident. And as mentioned, MSC wouldn't have had his Spa DSQ, since there wouldn't have been a plank to wear down. And it's not too hard to imagine that Hill may not have out-qualified Schumacher by 0.003s in GB, for the same reasons already mentioned, which means Michael would not have had to sit out four races that year since he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake Hill on the formation lap. Butterfly effect and all that

What you're saying is that Williams benefitted from the imposed changes more than Benetton. I would say that, regardless of superiority/inferiority, both teams (and all others) were faced with additional work. And while it is true Benetton saw its superiority reduced, Williams had to try to claw back a comparable amount of downforce, while solving their continuing handling problem. I would say Williams had more work to do than Benetton.

How the rest of the season would have gone is indeed hard to imagine, and is to my mind largely dependant on whether Senna's accident would have injured him to the point of taking him out of the sport, or have left him intact at 30 points behind Schumacher, and 23 behind Hill. Had Senna indeed just walked away from the accident, then the work awaiting Williams would "simply" have been to cure the aerodynamics problem they were suffering from, with Senna on hand for testing alongside Hill. And perhaps the Benetton cheating would have been treated differently too; because apart from the electronics the Senna was suspicious of, there was also the fuel filter cheating issue. More than enough work for the FIA to have to get through.

Perhaps I should consider buying Adrian Newey's book on constructing a race car; it appears he describes a number of things touching on 1994. And there's also a book Willem Toet mentioned in his articles on 1994. I'll have to check which one that might be.

As I said before, the one person who could tell us so much more about Vettel's qualities, is Newey.

It's a difficult one to judge. Williams were always going to improve anyway, as they knew they had an ill-handling car and were working hard to change it, but I'm sure I read that the changes mandated for all cars by the FIA in the wake of Senna's death actually had the unintended consequence of improving the proportions and handling of their car, so yes, I do feel - and it's just a feeling - that Williams benefitted more that Benetton, given that Benetton car was already very good anyway. But the biggest factor for me was that at least one of Schumacher's DSQ would most likely not have happened (for the plank infringement) and there's a decent chance the British GP one may not have. So given the lead Schumacher had already built up the odds are that he would have hung on for the title.

OTOH, if the Williams had improved regardless then Senna was certainly the right driver to claw back the gap. I'm just not sure that without any DSQs it would have been enough

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Benetton and Schumacher were cheating for all of '94. Should have been DSQ for the entirety of '94 and stripped of all wins and points imho.

No Schumacher? No Villeneuve?
No Peterson?

dpastern wrote:

Mort Canard wrote:Is there ANYONE here who is willing to step up and claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg???


Source: http://seethrumag.com/wp-content/upload ... 308201.jpg

I'll take that bait. Schumacher is overrated. He had the best car for many years, and after Hakkinen disappeared, he had no real driver competition for the WDC. Coupled to weak team mates, team favouritism and cheating (from both Schumacher and his team(s).

If Williams hadn't screwed up the '94 Williams, resulting in Senna's untimely death, there's no way that Schumacher would have won 7 WDCs. Not even close.

As to Vettel, I'll be blunt - I also think he's overrated. He's not in the same league as Hamilton or Alonso. Not even close. Vettel is not particularly good in the wet, and is prone to failing under stress and high pressure situations.

You attacked Schumacher's claim to be GOAT because of his performance in his first career, and there is somewhat of a case to be made there. It's hard to compare drivers who have not raced head to head against each other. It is even hard to compare Senna and Schumacher when they both drover very different and unequal cars against each other. During those years Michael was on the upslope of his career and Ayrton was in the waning years of his career. Not really an apples to apples comparison. If you want to say Senna was better than Schumacher, you are entitled to that opinon.

My question was whether anyone could credibly claim that it diminished Michael Schumacher's accomplishments when he was beaten three years running by a young Nico Rosberg in his second career???



IMO Schumacher's first career stands or falls on it's own merits.

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Benetton and Schumacher were cheating for all of '94. Should have been DSQ for the entirety of '94 and stripped of all wins and points imho.

No Schumacher? No Villeneuve?
No Peterson?

Correct.

dpastern wrote:

Paolo_Lasardi wrote:

dpastern wrote:There are 4 wet weather drivers that stand out to me:

Senna
Clark
Hamilton
Verstappen

Nothing else comes close. Vettel is a very distant level away from these 4 guys in the wet imho.

Benetton and Schumacher were cheating for all of '94. Should have been DSQ for the entirety of '94 and stripped of all wins and points imho.

No Schumacher? No Villeneuve?
No Peterson?

Correct.

Then I do not agree at all with your list.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:While I'd agree that Schumacher might not have 7 titles now had Senna not had his accident, he was still the driver to beat for over a decade and he would have had more than just one or two titles IMO.

But Senna's death changed more than just the driver landscape. Without his accident, the cars might not have had the planks fitted, which means Schumacher would not have faced his DSQ in Spa, while the host of other car modifications demanded in the name of safety might also have not been implemented, which in turn means that the Williams may not have closed the gap to Benetton. All in all it points to Schumacher still winning his first title in 1994 and from there who knows what direction car development may have taken without the safety restrictions imposed upon them by Senna's death.

This is outside the subject of this thread; would it be worth making it into a thead of its own? Because I would like to hear how you conclude that Schumacher would have won the title in '94 anyway.

It's speculative, based on the idea that the safety modifications mandated after Senna's death had a significant impact on the cars (they were said to have reduced downforce by 15%) and helped Williams in making their car more competitive. E.g. according to the FW16B Wiki page "the shortened sidepods arose due to a necessity to use larger bargeboards after the front wing endplate diffusers were banned." Pre-changes the Benetton was superior, so maybe that wouldn't have been the case has Senna not had his accident. And as mentioned, MSC wouldn't have had his Spa DSQ, since there wouldn't have been a plank to wear down. And it's not too hard to imagine that Hill may not have out-qualified Schumacher by 0.003s in GB, for the same reasons already mentioned, which means Michael would not have had to sit out four races that year since he wouldn't have been in a position to overtake Hill on the formation lap. Butterfly effect and all that

What you're saying is that Williams benefitted from the imposed changes more than Benetton. I would say that, regardless of superiority/inferiority, both teams (and all others) were faced with additional work. And while it is true Benetton saw its superiority reduced, Williams had to try to claw back a comparable amount of downforce, while solving their continuing handling problem. I would say Williams had more work to do than Benetton.

How the rest of the season would have gone is indeed hard to imagine, and is to my mind largely dependant on whether Senna's accident would have injured him to the point of taking him out of the sport, or have left him intact at 30 points behind Schumacher, and 23 behind Hill. Had Senna indeed just walked away from the accident, then the work awaiting Williams would "simply" have been to cure the aerodynamics problem they were suffering from, with Senna on hand for testing alongside Hill. And perhaps the Benetton cheating would have been treated differently too; because apart from the electronics the Senna was suspicious of, there was also the fuel filter cheating issue. More than enough work for the FIA to have to get through.

Perhaps I should consider buying Adrian Newey's book on constructing a race car; it appears he describes a number of things touching on 1994. And there's also a book Willem Toet mentioned in his articles on 1994. I'll have to check which one that might be.

As I said before, the one person who could tell us so much more about Vettel's qualities, is Newey.

It's a difficult one to judge. Williams were always going to improve anyway, as they knew they had an ill-handling car and were working hard to change it, but I'm sure I read that the changes mandated for all cars by the FIA in the wake of Senna's death actually had the unintended consequence of improving the proportions and handling of their car, so yes, I do feel - and it's just a feeling - that Williams benefitted more that Benetton, given that Benetton car was already very good anyway. But the biggest factor for me was that at least one of Schumacher's DSQ would most likely not have happened (for the plank infringement) and there's a decent chance the British GP one may not have. So given the lead Schumacher had already built up the odds are that he would have hung on for the title.

OTOH, if the Williams had improved regardless then Senna was certainly the right driver to claw back the gap. I'm just not sure that without any DSQs it would have been enough

Fascinating, thinking about how the season might have gone without the loss of Senna. I believe the importance of the fuel cheating, brought to light (what's in a word?) by the pitlane fire at Hockenheim, would not have been downplayed by the FIA/F1. And therefore, the consequences could and should have been far more severe.
But none of this takes away from Schumacher's qualities and achievements.

What would Vettel make of all that now? His own talent and achievements are held against the light in this thread.

Fiki wrote:Fascinating, thinking about how the season might have gone without the loss of Senna. I believe the importance of the fuel cheating, brought to light (what's in a word?) by the pitlane fire at Hockenheim, would not have been downplayed by the FIA/F1. And therefore, the consequences could and should have been far more severe.

I was also wondering about the cheating allegations in 94 had Senna lived but more specifically the TC issue considering what he heard whilst sitting near the fence in Aida after being taken out & in light of Jos Verstappens comments in recent years regarding that issue.

Personally I think Max is currently overrated as a wet weather driver. A few years ago he had several outstanding performances in the rain. More recently he has not turned in the same kind of wet weather triumphs. Likewise Sebastian Vettel's wet weather performances are definitely in the rear view mirror. The debacle in Germany last year will have to be lived down by superior performances in future rain races.

My list of GOAT wet weather drivers would include.
1. Ayrton Senna
2. Jim Clark
3. Jackie Stewart
4. Michael Schumacher
5. Lewis Hamilton

Honorable mention (in no particular order)
Jackie Ickx
Giles Villeneuve
Jenson Button
Damon Hill
James Hunt

Alberto Ascari and Juan Manuel Fangio have very impressive percentages of wet races won, however I never have seen any of those and can't say much.