Page 23 of 42
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:31 pm
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:16 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:54 am
And especially for Mercedes, Schumacher along with Haug were the people who convinced the Merc board to pour more money in the team and bring Toto, which evolved to today's monster team.
It's the perfect storm though, his retirement at the end of 2012 allows people to stretch his contribution despite the constant change of personnel, team structure and team culture since unless we are all pretending Schumacher was some kind of prophet. Ross Brawn and Bob Bell departed, Paddy Lowe came and went, James Allison arrived. It's hard to credit Schumacher with the ship of Theseus Mercedes is today.
Vowles, Meadows, Cole, Shovlin (amongst other names) were there when Schumacher was. And these are some of people that said the very same thing we are discussing, that he helped them improve and set the basis for this team. You are right in that personnel comes and goes over 12 years, but this doesn't mean that you can't credit the people who started it, right? Why is it difficult to say that he was instrumental in building up this team when he was there from the beginning and got them to raise the funding which in the end brought massive success?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
by Paolo_Lasardi
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
by Asphalt_World
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
It was that race in 99 when his entire team decided to take the weekend off. Michael did everything, changed all 4 tyres during pit stops, built the car for the race, sorted strategy and cooked the meals for himself. I'm surprised you've forgotten that race!
By the way, I'm a huge admirer of Schumacher's speed, but he never won a race without a great team around him.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
by myattitude
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
JV means Senna and Schumacher led the teams (the basis of the support) while Lewis was simply supported by the teams.
Lewis has never been a team builder or leader of men in hard times. This is a trait at least 10x more powerful than simple driving speed.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:45 pm
by myattitude
Asphalt_World wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
It was that race in 99 when his entire team decided to take the weekend off. Michael did everything, changed all 4 tyres during pit stops, built the car for the race, sorted strategy and cooked the meals for himself. I'm surprised you've forgotten that race!
By the way, I'm a huge admirer of Schumacher's speed, but he never won a race without a great team around him.
This is the sort of comment I read regularly with detractors of Schumacher's team leadership. I reckon people who say things like that have never led a team in their lives or else they'd know better. The whole point of being a team leader is that you DON'T do things like change tyres or design engines, but lead the people who do.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:53 pm
by Paolo_Lasardi
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
JV means Senna and Schumacher led the teams (the basis of the support) while Lewis was simply supported by the teams.
Lewis has never been a team builder or leader of men in hard times. This is a trait at least 10x more powerful than simple driving speed.
As I said: more and more absurd. The quote reads: "without support of the team". And that is absurd nonsense.
Alonso won a race in 2007 without the support of the team. Maybe Webber did at Red Bull in his not-bad-for-a-number-two times. Lauda did in 1977. However, Schumacher always had the full support of his team when he was winning. And I do guess it is the same with Senna.
The mystic fantasies regarding Schumacher are losing any touch to reality.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:04 pm
by F1Tyrant
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:31 pm
Why is it difficult to say that he was instrumental in building up this team when he was there from the beginning and got them to raise the funding which in the end brought massive success?
My main issue is that Schumacher gets a lot of credit in hindsight but absolutely none of the blame in the counterfactual. The timing of his retirement in 2012 was genius.
Had Mercedes made a huge mess of the 2014 regulations, few would point to Schumacher and say "Well he couldn't repeat his Ferrari feat at Mercedes." and his supporters would rightly reply "Schumacher had nothing to do with Mercedes by then, you can't blame him for their failures."
I think we need to put Schumacher's contribution to Mercedes into perspective. Huge at the beginning and probably influenced their initial success but had little impact on their long term excellence, much like Ross Brawn's own contribution to the Silver Arrows.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:07 pm
by Paolo_Lasardi
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:09 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:35 am
KingVoid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:15 pm
Yes, that is a myth, really. It started out with some projections than Schumacher with an ideal season could have matched Rosberg (without assuming an ideal season for him as well, of course). And over the years, the mantra was developed that he was better than Rosberg, which is as false as the claim that Schumacher scored the first pole ...
In qualifying, Schumacher was only 0.042% slower than Rosberg in 2012. Hamilton was a median of 0.085% quicker than Rosberg. This means that a 43 year old Schumacher was at worst 0.130% slower than peak Hamilton.
As far as race performances are concerned:
Australia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg and was leading him and pulling away until a gearbox failure. Schumi lost at least 10 points. I doubt he'd have beaten the RB drivers but 5th was definitely possible.
Malaysia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg, gets spun by Grosjean on lap 1, and still beats Rosberg in the race (who suffered no misfortune). Schumacher lost a possible top 5 finish without the spin, 9 points lost.
China - Schumacher loses 18 points because of a wheelnut failure
Bahrain - no misfortunes
Monaco - Schumacher loses 6 points because of a mechanical problem
You could argue that he lost 25 points if you think that his penalty for the Spain accident with Senna was undeserved. I think it was, and even freaking JV agreed and defended Schumacher (saying Bruno moved in the braking zone)
Canada - Schumacher retires from mechanical problems, but he was only on course for P9 anyway. 2 points lost.
Valencia, Silverstone, Hockenheim - no bad luck for either driver.
Hungary - Schumacher stalled on the formation lap but it wouldn't have mattered anyway
Belgium - Schumacher overtook Raikkonen on pace and was on course for a podium until his car developed a gearbox problem. 9 points lost.
Monza - clean race
Singapore - Schumacher crashed on his own, no points given
After Singapore the Merc wasn't even good enough for points anymore so it didn't matter.
Schumacher ends up with 49 + 10 + 9 + 18 + (6 or 25) + 2 + 9 = 103 or 122 points.
Rosberg finished the season with 93 points and suffered little to no misfortunes.
If you can give me an example of misfortune from Rosberg in 2012, go ahead.
Based on who was better on a race-by-race basis, I would go like this:
AUS - MSC
MAL - MSC
CHI - ROS
BAH - ROS
ESP - ROS
MON - ROS
CAN - ROS
EUR - MSC
GBR - MSC
GER - MSC
HUN - ROS
BEL - MSC
ITA - MSC
SIN - ROS
USA - ROS
BZL - MSC
That's a score of 8-8 and I am very generous in giving Monaco and Hungary to Rosberg.
I didn't bother looking at the period from Japan to Abu Dhabi because of how bad Mercedes was in this time (barely any faster than Caterham)
This is exactly the kind of analysis I am referring to: comparing an ideal Schumacher season with Rosberg's real season ...
The projections on Schumacher's points assume that all tyre strategies would have played out without any unexpected drop- offs. However, those are a main characteristic of 2012. And neither Mercedes nor Schumacher was particularly good with the Pirelli tyres.
For instance, I recently re-watched Cina 2012: Schumacher was nowhere on the way to second, no chance.
No misfortunes for Rosberg?
Being crashed out in Suzuka, Korea and Abu Dhabi from the top of my head, being innocent in at least two of the three incidents ( don't remember details of the third) - just to start with ...
Two bad qualifying positions due to technical issues ...
Was Rosberg actually on for many points in the races you quote there? Because the Merc was not a big point scorer at all in the second half of the season.
I know that when I watched the 2012 season I came away thinking Schumacher and Rosberg had been fairly equal that year.
If we assume ideal races as the original post is doing for Schumacher: yes. (Especially as the technical issues in qualifying were earlier in the season.)
I am not opposing your impression but I think it results from different perspectives on the two drivers: while each of Schumacher's races and misfortunes is closely observed and every excuse valued highly, the same is not done for Rosberg. This is understandable, and not only for Schumacher-fans (some of who desperately wanting Schumacher to be better which biased their perception): Schumacher simply was the much more prominent and much more popular driver, therefore commentators, media, press and so on was putting much more focus on what happened to his races than to Rsoberg's, naturally. This can distort the impression, even without a biased fan-view.
At the end of the day, within a three-year period Schumacher outperformed Rosberg in about a handful of races. And this gets over- exxagerated to "Schumacher actually was better than Rosberg " - as you can read in several posts in this thread. And this is wrong.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:09 pm
by Paolo_Lasardi
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:04 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:31 pm
Why is it difficult to say that he was instrumental in building up this team when he was there from the beginning and got them to raise the funding which in the end brought massive success?
My main issue is that Schumacher gets a lot of credit in hindsight but absolutely none of the blame in the counterfactual. The timing of his retirement in 2012 was genius.
Had Mercedes made a huge mess of the 2014 regulations, few would point to Schumacher and say "Well he couldn't repeat his Ferrari feat at Mercedes." and his supporters would rightly reply "Schumacher had nothing to do with Mercedes by then, you can't blame him for their failures."
I think we need to put Schumacher's contribution to Mercedes into perspective. Huge at the beginning and probably influenced their initial success but had little impact on their long term excellence, much like Ross Brawn's own contribution to the Silver Arrows.
True.
The turnaround came when Wolff and Lauda took over from Brawn and Haug. That was decisive.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:10 pm
by Paolo_Lasardi
Asphalt_World wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
It was that race in 99 when his entire team decided to take the weekend off. Michael did everything, changed all 4 tyres during pit stops, built the car for the race, sorted strategy and cooked the meals for himself. I'm surprised you've forgotten that race!
By the way, I'm a huge admirer of Schumacher's speed, but he never won a race without a great team around him.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:23 pm
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:04 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:31 pm
Why is it difficult to say that he was instrumental in building up this team when he was there from the beginning and got them to raise the funding which in the end brought massive success?
My main issue is that Schumacher gets a lot of credit in hindsight but absolutely none of the blame in the counterfactual. The timing of his retirement in 2012 was genius.
Had Mercedes made a huge mess of the 2014 regulations, few would point to Schumacher and say "Well he couldn't repeat his Ferrari feat at Mercedes." and his supporters would rightly reply "Schumacher had nothing to do with Mercedes by then, you can't blame him for their failures."
I think we need to put Schumacher's contribution to Mercedes into perspective. Huge at the beginning and probably influenced their initial success but had little impact on their long term excellence, much like Ross Brawn's own contribution to the Silver Arrows.
Not sure how to approach this.
So let me get this right, you have an issue that he doesn't get blamed on a hypothetical negative scenario that didn't really happen?
Woulda/coulda/shoulda? How much sense does this make?????? You can only judge someone in hindsight from the results of his actions/leadership/input/whatever you want to name it; judging him on something that hasn't happened, that's just reaching.
I agree with the last bit, but remember that no one has claimed that all the success that Mercedes has had up to now is down to Schumacher. He was there in the beginning and he was instrumental into Mercedes pouring money in the team, money that ultimately brought the success. He was not the only reason, but a big part of it. The fact that their own employees say this leaves little to be argued.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm
by F1Tyrant
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:23 pm
...judging him on something that hasn't happened, that's just reaching.
The timing of his 2012 retirement allowed him to have his cake and eat it. If Mercedes succeeded, he was instrumental in the foundations of that success. If Mercedes failed, he was too far removed from the process to feel any negative consequences.
Not reaching, merely showing the optics of his legacy in 2012.
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:23 pm
He was there in the beginning and he was instrumental into Mercedes pouring money in the team, money that ultimately brought the success. He was not the only reason, but a big part of it. The fact that their own employees say this leaves little to be argued.
Okay, I can agree with this statement as to the early success of the team.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:40 pm
by DOLOMITE
well just to weigh in, I tried to find first-hand accounts on the web that gave examples of what Schu actually did other than motivate people, work hard, and drive brilliantly. For example did he actually specify people for recruitment, suggest team restructures, investment in specifc technologies etc etc.
I'm not saying he didn't, it would be fascinating to know.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:51 pm
by A.J.
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
JV means Senna and Schumacher led the teams (the basis of the support) while Lewis was simply supported by the teams.
Lewis has never been a team builder or leader of men in hard times. This is a trait at least 10x more powerful than simple driving speed.
People like to selectively read and understand stuff - that's just how it is. Completely ignoring the stuff that came before the one statement the poster considers absurd (which he apparently misunderstood).
For me it is surprising to see someone like JV say anything even remotely positive about Schumacher. It is clear what JV means (that the team support structure wasn't always there for Senna/Schumacher), and he is 100% correct - Hamilton performs when he is supported, but the moment it gets tough out come the conspiracy theories and excuses. Probably also why Wolff considers it more important to go and protest to the stewards than support Bottas on his win.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:53 pm
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:39 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:23 pm
...judging him on something that hasn't happened, that's just reaching.
The timing of his 2012 retirement allowed him to have his cake and eat it. If Mercedes succeeded, he was instrumental in the foundations of that success. If Mercedes failed, he was too far removed from the process to feel any negative consequences.
Not reaching, merely showing the optics of his legacy in 2012.
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:23 pm
He was there in the beginning and he was instrumental into Mercedes pouring money in the team, money that ultimately brought the success. He was not the only reason, but a big part of it. The fact that their own employees say this leaves little to be argued.
Okay, I can agree with this statement as to the early success of the team.
Can't you see how absurd this logic is? We can't start having a go at people for things they didn't do!
For all we know, if he stayed on he would have had a great machine in 2014, so he was unlucky that he left. He would be old, but can you imagine winning a WDC aged 45 nowadays? It would make him a god of the sport if nothing else.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:59 pm
by Siao7
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:40 pm
well just to weigh in, I tried to find first-hand accounts on the web that gave examples of what Schu actually did other than motivate people, work hard, and drive brilliantly.
For example did he actually specify people for recruitment, suggest team restructures, investment in specifc technologies etc etc.
I'm not saying he didn't, it would be fascinating to know.
You need to read some of the books I'm afraid. I've heard a lot of anecdotes as well, but books like the "edge of greatness" give a bit more details. For example, stark contrast to the "I love you guys, we are so blessed" routine, Schumacher would know the people in the factory by first name and routinely send flowers to people in their birthdays.
As far as the bit in bold, I am not sure.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:14 pm
by F1Tyrant
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:53 pm
We can't start having a go at people for things they didn't do!
Who is having a go? All I'm saying is that his efforts at Mercedes would have had little impact on his legacy at the time he left in 2012 and he gets extra credit since Mercedes rise in 2014.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:52 pm
by Siao7
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:14 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:53 pm
We can't start having a go at people for things they didn't do!
Who is having a go? All I'm saying is that his efforts at Mercedes would have had little impact on his legacy at the time he left in 2012 and he gets extra credit since Mercedes rise in 2014.
Having a go is probably not the best way of putting it, but by your own admission it irks you. So you have an issue with someone getting apparently extra credit (for something he did) and not being blamed for something that he didn't do wrong. I just find this bizarre.
Again, the credit came from the very people he worked with, not from Gary on FaceBook.
Anyway, I don't think I have to add anything else in this, we can happily disagree and enjoy our weekend!
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:57 pm
by DOLOMITE
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:59 pm
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:40 pm
well just to weigh in, I tried to find first-hand accounts on the web that gave examples of what Schu actually did other than motivate people, work hard, and drive brilliantly.
For example did he actually specify people for recruitment, suggest team restructures, investment in specifc technologies etc etc.
I'm not saying he didn't, it would be fascinating to know.
You need to read some of the books I'm afraid. I've heard a lot of anecdotes as well, but books like the "edge of greatness" give a bit more details. For example, stark contrast to the "I love you guys, we are so blessed" routine, Schumacher would know the people in the factory by first name and routinely send flowers to people in their birthdays.
As far as the bit in bold, I am not sure.
OK but knowing people by name and buying them flowers is the exact kind of thing I
wasn't looking for - hence the examples I gave. My boss could by all our teams flowers and learn the names of our pets, but that won't result in much more than some fickle loyalty, and it certainly won't generate results as much as a leader with a strong vision who implements real change when needed and makes the difficult calls.
Did Schu actually have any material input into strategic decisions? The likes of Todt, Brawn, Byrne etc most certainly would have and those calls would have directly contributed to results. Be clear I'm not saying Schu didn't play his part, but is there anything to show that if the dream team was Brawn, Schu, Todt and Byrne do we really have anything to suggest that Schu's contribution the success was more than 25% . Was he playing his part to the same high standards they were or was his contribution more?
I have just ordered Edge Of Greatness so I will see if that offers anything of more substance.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:07 pm
by pokerman
KingVoid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:15 pm
Yes, that is a myth, really. It started out with some projections than Schumacher with an ideal season could have matched Rosberg (without assuming an ideal season for him as well, of course). And over the years, the mantra was developed that he was better than Rosberg, which is as false as the claim that Schumacher scored the first pole ...
In qualifying, Schumacher was only 0.042% slower than Rosberg in 2012. Hamilton was a median of 0.085% quicker than Rosberg. This means that a 43 year old Schumacher was at worst 0.130% slower than peak Hamilton.
As far as race performances are concerned:
Australia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg and was leading him and pulling away until a gearbox failure. Schumi lost at least 10 points. I doubt he'd have beaten the RB drivers but 5th was definitely possible.
Malaysia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg, gets spun by Grosjean on lap 1, and still beats Rosberg in the race (who suffered no misfortune). Schumacher lost a possible top 5 finish without the spin, 9 points lost.
China - Schumacher loses 18 points because of a wheelnut failure
Bahrain - no misfortunes
Monaco - Schumacher loses 6 points because of a mechanical problem
You could argue that he lost 25 points if you think that his penalty for the Spain accident with Senna was undeserved. I think it was, and even freaking JV agreed and defended Schumacher (saying Bruno moved in the braking zone)
Canada - Schumacher retires from mechanical problems, but he was only on course for P9 anyway. 2 points lost.
Valencia, Silverstone, Hockenheim - no bad luck for either driver.
Hungary - Schumacher stalled on the formation lap but it wouldn't have mattered anyway
Belgium - Schumacher overtook Raikkonen on pace and was on course for a podium until his car developed a gearbox problem. 9 points lost.
Monza - clean race
Singapore - Schumacher crashed on his own, no points given
After Singapore the Merc wasn't even good enough for points anymore so it didn't matter.
Schumacher ends up with 49 + 10 + 9 + 18 + (6 or 25) + 2 + 9 = 103 or 122 points.
Rosberg finished the season with 93 points and suffered little to no misfortunes.
If you can give me an example of misfortune from Rosberg in 2012, go ahead.
Based on who was better on a race-by-race basis, I would go like this:
AUS - MSC
MAL - MSC
CHI - ROS
BAH - ROS
ESP - ROS
MON - ROS
CAN - ROS
EUR - MSC
GBR - MSC
GER - MSC
HUN - ROS
BEL - MSC
ITA - MSC
SIN - ROS
USA - ROS
BZL - MSC
That's a score of 8-8 and I am very generous in giving Monaco and Hungary to Rosberg.
I didn't bother looking at the period from Japan to Abu Dhabi because of how bad Mercedes was in this time (barely any faster than Caterham)
Where are the Rosberg fans when you need them, strange how Rosberg had no problems whatsoever, any way I checked up on Singapore to find that Rosberg was leading Schumacher by 9 seconds before it appears that a SC was called and they both pitted for tyres, then I assume Schumacher crashed on the SC restart, strange how that doesn't count and it only took me 5 mins of sleuthing.
Looking at your qualifying stats you're taking Schumacher's best year against Rosberg and comparing it with the median between Hamilton and Rosberg and seeing it has being Schumacher at his worse only being 0.13% slower than a prime Hamilton, no that would be a 40+ Schumacher at his best against an average Hamilton
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:12 pm
by pokerman
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:35 am
KingVoid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:15 pm
Yes, that is a myth, really. It started out with some projections than Schumacher with an ideal season could have matched Rosberg (without assuming an ideal season for him as well, of course). And over the years, the mantra was developed that he was better than Rosberg, which is as false as the claim that Schumacher scored the first pole ...
In qualifying, Schumacher was only 0.042% slower than Rosberg in 2012. Hamilton was a median of 0.085% quicker than Rosberg. This means that a 43 year old Schumacher was at worst 0.130% slower than peak Hamilton.
As far as race performances are concerned:
Australia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg and was leading him and pulling away until a gearbox failure. Schumi lost at least 10 points. I doubt he'd have beaten the RB drivers but 5th was definitely possible.
Malaysia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg, gets spun by Grosjean on lap 1, and still beats Rosberg in the race (who suffered no misfortune). Schumacher lost a possible top 5 finish without the spin, 9 points lost.
China - Schumacher loses 18 points because of a wheelnut failure
Bahrain - no misfortunes
Monaco - Schumacher loses 6 points because of a mechanical problem
You could argue that he lost 25 points if you think that his penalty for the Spain accident with Senna was undeserved. I think it was, and even freaking JV agreed and defended Schumacher (saying Bruno moved in the braking zone)
Canada - Schumacher retires from mechanical problems, but he was only on course for P9 anyway. 2 points lost.
Valencia, Silverstone, Hockenheim - no bad luck for either driver.
Hungary - Schumacher stalled on the formation lap but it wouldn't have mattered anyway
Belgium - Schumacher overtook Raikkonen on pace and was on course for a podium until his car developed a gearbox problem. 9 points lost.
Monza - clean race
Singapore - Schumacher crashed on his own, no points given
After Singapore the Merc wasn't even good enough for points anymore so it didn't matter.
Schumacher ends up with 49 + 10 + 9 + 18 + (6 or 25) + 2 + 9 = 103 or 122 points.
Rosberg finished the season with 93 points and suffered little to no misfortunes.
If you can give me an example of misfortune from Rosberg in 2012, go ahead.
Based on who was better on a race-by-race basis, I would go like this:
AUS - MSC
MAL - MSC
CHI - ROS
BAH - ROS
ESP - ROS
MON - ROS
CAN - ROS
EUR - MSC
GBR - MSC
GER - MSC
HUN - ROS
BEL - MSC
ITA - MSC
SIN - ROS
USA - ROS
BZL - MSC
That's a score of 8-8 and I am very generous in giving Monaco and Hungary to Rosberg.
I didn't bother looking at the period from Japan to Abu Dhabi because of how bad Mercedes was in this time (barely any faster than Caterham)
This is exactly the kind of analysis I am referring to: comparing an ideal Schumacher season with Rosberg's real season ...
The projections on Schumacher's points assume that all tyre strategies would have played out without any unexpected drop- offs. However, those are a main characteristic of 2012. And neither Mercedes nor Schumacher was particularly good with the Pirelli tyres.
For instance, I recently re-watched Cina 2012: Schumacher was nowhere on the way to second, no chance.
No misfortunes for Rosberg?
Being crashed out in Suzuka, Korea and Abu Dhabi from the top of my head, being innocent in at least two of the three incidents ( don't remember details of the third) - just to start with ...
Two bad qualifying positions due to technical issues ...
Out of interest what 2 qualifying sessions were those?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:27 pm
by Siao7
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:57 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:59 pm
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:40 pm
well just to weigh in, I tried to find first-hand accounts on the web that gave examples of what Schu actually did other than motivate people, work hard, and drive brilliantly.
For example did he actually specify people for recruitment, suggest team restructures, investment in specifc technologies etc etc.
I'm not saying he didn't, it would be fascinating to know.
You need to read some of the books I'm afraid. I've heard a lot of anecdotes as well, but books like the "edge of greatness" give a bit more details. For example, stark contrast to the "I love you guys, we are so blessed" routine, Schumacher would know the people in the factory by first name and routinely send flowers to people in their birthdays.
As far as the bit in bold, I am not sure.
OK but knowing people by name and buying them flowers is the exact kind of thing I
wasn't looking for - hence the examples I gave. My boss could by all our teams flowers and learn the names of our pets, but that won't result in much more than some fickle loyalty, and it certainly won't generate results as much as a leader with a strong vision who implements real change when needed and makes the difficult calls.
Did Schu actually have any material input into strategic decisions? The likes of Todt, Brawn, Byrne etc most certainly would have and those calls would have directly contributed to results. Be clear I'm not saying Schu didn't play his part, but is there anything to show that if the dream team was Brawn, Schu, Todt and Byrne do we really have anything to suggest that Schu's contribution the success was more than 25% . Was he playing his part to the same high standards they were or was his contribution more?
I have just ordered Edge Of Greatness so I will see if that offers anything of more substance.
I get all that, but I am equally not 100% sure what we are looking for here; drivers do not normally call restructuring, technologies or personnel recruitment. I can think that he was the catalyst for bringing Brawn and Byrne to Ferrari possibly in 1997.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:31 pm
by F1Tyrant
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:52 pm
So you have an issue with someone getting apparently extra credit (for something he did) and not being blamed for something that he didn't do wrong. I just find this bizarre.
I concede when put in those terms it is bizarre. I suppose it's just the fickle nature of timing in this sport. I don't think that many people think that Hamilton was a integral part of McLaren's competitiveness even though they haven't won a race since he left.
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:52 pm
Anyway, I don't think I have to add anything else in this, we can happily disagree and enjoy our weekend!
I've found this one of the more interesting points of contention in this thread.
I feel it much harder to defend the idea that Schumacher had barely any influence on Mercedes' success, for what it's worth.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:01 pm
by pokerman
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:46 am
pokerman wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 6:13 pm
myattitude wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 4:13 pm
__________________________________
Meadows then spoke of the team’s regret over not winning with Schumacher as he provided a lot of the foundations that helped Mercedes become such a dominant force in the years to come.
“A couple of years later we couldn’t stop winning and he deserves some of that because the reason we’re winning today, a lot was down to him because he made us better.”
__________________________________
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... v5kwS.html
For 2010, Mercedes signed seven-time champion Schumacher – who had been out of Grand Prix racing since 2006 – alongside young German Nico Rosberg, and while initial results were decent, the team had to wait for 2012 for a pole position. It was delivered in stunning fashion by none other than Schumacher at the Monaco Grand Prix. However, the champion already had a five-place grid penalty from the previous race, leaving him starting from P6 and his hopes of a win in tatters.
False the first pole position was Rosberg in China the same year, what kind of reporting is this?
“He had shortcomings in terms of how he was able to drive the car relative to Nico, but he was very conscious and aware of that and doing what he could to remedy those areas. But the areas which, in truth, part of it was age, where he wouldn’t be helped to find anything on it, were there. I think he also knew that was his time.
It's strange how we keep getting told that in his final year he was better than Rosberg.
Doesn't it say a lot that in his final year he was better than Rosberg despite all the physical shortcomings he had by then? It wasn't just his age either but reduced blood supply to the brain from his bike accident. Did he publicly whinge? Did he blame his team? Did he imply a conspiracy against him? No, he just got his head down and worked on his game, and it paid off because by 2012 at 43 years old he was doing better than Rosberg. Hamilton never had this kind of fortitude.
But that wasn't the point of the post, which was to highlight Schumacher's contribution to Mercedes's success today, that team building trait which Hamilton (or anyone else) doesn't hold a candle to.
Only two people in F1 history are this instrumental in building dominant teams more than once - one is Adrian Newey, the other is Michael Schumacher.
That's just your opinion, I have to watch a podcast that indeed highlights Schumacher's ability to motivate a team but that podcast doesn't inform me that Schumacher was better than Rosberg, the only reference is that because of his age Schumacher couldn't do some of the things that Rosberg could do, that to me implies the opposite to what you are saying, Schumacher recognised this hence why he decided not to continue on, or words to that affect.
I see this a lot were things are brought forward and people only see the things they want to see, they said that Schumacher had weaknesses which he knew about and strove to improve and then when asked what weaknesses Hamilton had there was silence, can't think of any.
In fact of the 4 drivers mentioned Schumacher, Hamilton, Rosberg and Button, Hamilton is the only one that they enthused about in respect to talent and lack of driving weaknesses, does that sound like a 40+ Schumacher was anywhere near a match for a prime Hamilton like some in this thread would like to believe?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:11 pm
by mikeyg123
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:07 pm
mikeyg123 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:09 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:35 am
KingVoid wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:57 am
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Thu Apr 08, 2021 11:15 pm
Yes, that is a myth, really. It started out with some projections than Schumacher with an ideal season could have matched Rosberg (without assuming an ideal season for him as well, of course). And over the years, the mantra was developed that he was better than Rosberg, which is as false as the claim that Schumacher scored the first pole ...
In qualifying, Schumacher was only 0.042% slower than Rosberg in 2012. Hamilton was a median of 0.085% quicker than Rosberg. This means that a 43 year old Schumacher was at worst 0.130% slower than peak Hamilton.
As far as race performances are concerned:
Australia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg and was leading him and pulling away until a gearbox failure. Schumi lost at least 10 points. I doubt he'd have beaten the RB drivers but 5th was definitely possible.
Malaysia - Schumacher outqualifies Rosberg, gets spun by Grosjean on lap 1, and still beats Rosberg in the race (who suffered no misfortune). Schumacher lost a possible top 5 finish without the spin, 9 points lost.
China - Schumacher loses 18 points because of a wheelnut failure
Bahrain - no misfortunes
Monaco - Schumacher loses 6 points because of a mechanical problem
You could argue that he lost 25 points if you think that his penalty for the Spain accident with Senna was undeserved. I think it was, and even freaking JV agreed and defended Schumacher (saying Bruno moved in the braking zone)
Canada - Schumacher retires from mechanical problems, but he was only on course for P9 anyway. 2 points lost.
Valencia, Silverstone, Hockenheim - no bad luck for either driver.
Hungary - Schumacher stalled on the formation lap but it wouldn't have mattered anyway
Belgium - Schumacher overtook Raikkonen on pace and was on course for a podium until his car developed a gearbox problem. 9 points lost.
Monza - clean race
Singapore - Schumacher crashed on his own, no points given
After Singapore the Merc wasn't even good enough for points anymore so it didn't matter.
Schumacher ends up with 49 + 10 + 9 + 18 + (6 or 25) + 2 + 9 = 103 or 122 points.
Rosberg finished the season with 93 points and suffered little to no misfortunes.
If you can give me an example of misfortune from Rosberg in 2012, go ahead.
Based on who was better on a race-by-race basis, I would go like this:
AUS - MSC
MAL - MSC
CHI - ROS
BAH - ROS
ESP - ROS
MON - ROS
CAN - ROS
EUR - MSC
GBR - MSC
GER - MSC
HUN - ROS
BEL - MSC
ITA - MSC
SIN - ROS
USA - ROS
BZL - MSC
That's a score of 8-8 and I am very generous in giving Monaco and Hungary to Rosberg.
I didn't bother looking at the period from Japan to Abu Dhabi because of how bad Mercedes was in this time (barely any faster than Caterham)
This is exactly the kind of analysis I am referring to: comparing an ideal Schumacher season with Rosberg's real season ...
The projections on Schumacher's points assume that all tyre strategies would have played out without any unexpected drop- offs. However, those are a main characteristic of 2012. And neither Mercedes nor Schumacher was particularly good with the Pirelli tyres.
For instance, I recently re-watched Cina 2012: Schumacher was nowhere on the way to second, no chance.
No misfortunes for Rosberg?
Being crashed out in Suzuka, Korea and Abu Dhabi from the top of my head, being innocent in at least two of the three incidents ( don't remember details of the third) - just to start with ...
Two bad qualifying positions due to technical issues ...
Was Rosberg actually on for many points in the races you quote there? Because the Merc was not a big point scorer at all in the second half of the season.
I know that when I watched the 2012 season I came away thinking Schumacher and Rosberg had been fairly equal that year.
If we assume ideal races as the original post is doing for Schumacher: yes. (Especially as the technical issues in qualifying were earlier in the season.)
I am not opposing your impression but I think it results from different perspectives on the two drivers: while each of Schumacher's races and misfortunes is closely observed and every excuse valued highly, the same is not done for Rosberg. This is understandable, and not only for Schumacher-fans (some of who desperately wanting Schumacher to be better which biased their perception): Schumacher simply was the much more prominent and much more popular driver, therefore commentators, media, press and so on was putting much more focus on what happened to his races than to Rsoberg's, naturally. This can distort the impression, even without a biased fan-view.
At the end of the day, within a three-year period Schumacher outperformed Rosberg in about a handful of races. And this gets over- exxagerated to "Schumacher actually was better than Rosberg " - as you can read in several posts in this thread. And this is wrong.
But the reason why people focus on the issues for Schumacher more is that they cost him a lot more in terms of points. Rosberg had issues later in the season which have been spelled out but by that point Mercedes were no longer scoring big points.
I.E retirements from 9th, 10th and 11th are nowhere near as costly as those from 2nd, 3rd or 4th.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 5:12 pm
by pokerman
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:43 am
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:13 am
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:46 am
But that wasn't the point of the post, which was to highlight Schumacher's contribution to Mercedes's success today, that team building trait which Hamilton (or anyone else) doesn't hold a candle to.
Only two people in F1 history are this instrumental in building dominant teams more than once - one is Adrian Newey, the other is Michael Schumacher.
People are living in a dream world. Schumacher was an incredible driver, hard worker and leader within the teams he drove for but he was merely one cog in a very complex machine. It's fascinating how people overstate his contribution to Mercedes domination when the team was obviously investing resources and recruiting the best personnel with a view towards 2014.
Schumacher had many incredible people beside him throughout his career: Brawn, Byrne, Costa and Todt to name but a few not to mention the many unheralded engineers in his successful Benetton and Ferrari teams. To overstate his contribution and understate theirs is gauche great man-ism.
Hamilton has shown his ability to galvanise a team from 2017-present and before then his insecurity around his ability and confidence allowed Button to takeover at McLaren and his inability to fully turn Mercedes against Rosberg. He just isn't the domineering, supremely confident being that Schumacher was.
That isn't what those people who actually worked with Schumacher have said about his team building contributions.
Appearing to 'galvanise' a team from 2017 looks easy when you don't have much competition, but we'll see how he does when Max starts edging him. We saw as recently as 7 months ago how Hamilton descends into conspiracy theories and blaming others when results don't go his way. This isn't something he grows out of, this is an actual character trait. Hamilton hasn't galvanised Merc since 2017 beyond "well done guys you're awesome", the team was already set. Now let's see how he handles the downslide. History requires Max and Red Bull to show us this side of Hamilton now.
Mercedes didn't have competition from Ferrari in 2017 and 2018?
Vettel lead both titles for the majority of the year yet Hamilton didn't fold, it was Vettel that folded, last time out Hamilton beat Max in an inferior car, if Max does go on to win the title in a superior car that won't reflect badly on Hamilton.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 6:26 pm
by DOLOMITE
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 4:27 pm
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 3:57 pm
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:59 pm
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 2:40 pm
well just to weigh in, I tried to find first-hand accounts on the web that gave examples of what Schu actually did other than motivate people, work hard, and drive brilliantly.
For example did he actually specify people for recruitment, suggest team restructures, investment in specifc technologies etc etc.
I'm not saying he didn't, it would be fascinating to know.
You need to read some of the books I'm afraid. I've heard a lot of anecdotes as well, but books like the "edge of greatness" give a bit more details. For example, stark contrast to the "I love you guys, we are so blessed" routine, Schumacher would know the people in the factory by first name and routinely send flowers to people in their birthdays.
As far as the bit in bold, I am not sure.
OK but knowing people by name and buying them flowers is the exact kind of thing I
wasn't looking for - hence the examples I gave. My boss could by all our teams flowers and learn the names of our pets, but that won't result in much more than some fickle loyalty, and it certainly won't generate results as much as a leader with a strong vision who implements real change when needed and makes the difficult calls.
Did Schu actually have any material input into strategic decisions? The likes of Todt, Brawn, Byrne etc most certainly would have and those calls would have directly contributed to results. Be clear I'm not saying Schu didn't play his part, but is there anything to show that if the dream team was Brawn, Schu, Todt and Byrne do we really have anything to suggest that Schu's contribution the success was more than 25% . Was he playing his part to the same high standards they were or was his contribution more?
I have just ordered Edge Of Greatness so I will see if that offers anything of more substance.
I get all that, but I am equally not 100% sure what we are looking for here; drivers do not normally call restructuring, technologies or personnel recruitment. I can think that he was the catalyst for bringing Brawn and Byrne to Ferrari possibly in 1997.
And I don't think they would be either, and that's really my point. As the public face of the team if you like, Schu has people suggesting he was a major contribution, and for sure he was, but was he more significant than the others we have mentioned? We will never know. Personally I rate Hamilton up there with the best, but from what I've seen over the last few years, Wolff deserves a LOT of the credit for the teams success. A friend likened it to a tripod. Even if 1 leg is "better" in every way, the thing still falls over without either of the other legs. So in that respect, they're all 33% responsible for it staying upright.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:03 pm
by F1Tyrant
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:31 pm
Vowles, Meadows, Cole, Shovlin (amongst other names) were there when Schumacher was. And these are some of people that said the very same thing we are discussing, that he helped them improve and set the basis for this team.
I've just listened to the foursome in their Beyond The Grid episode and I must say that they give a credible impression that Schumacher brought something very distinct to the team. I also found it fascinating that they characterised Rosberg as quick learner (I was always under the impression that Rosberg got faster once paired with Hamilton) whereas Hamilton was on the money straight away.
They also conceded how much Hamilton has grown while at the team. I think it puts into perspective how dedicated and instrumental Schumacher was while he was competing.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:27 pm
by SR1
F1Tyrant wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:16 pm
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:43 am
We saw as recently as 7 months ago how Hamilton descends into conspiracy theories and blaming others when results don't go his way. This isn't something he grows out of, this is an actual character trait. Hamilton hasn't galvanised Merc since 2017 beyond "well done guys you're awesome", the team was already set. Now let's see how he handles the downslide. History requires
Max and Red Bull to show us this side of Hamilton now.
I've conceded that Hamilton is mentally weak and insecure but for now he feels secure at Mercedes. There is no way Max can disturb that as Hamilton can just say that Red Bull is a much better car. The real drama will be when Russell joins him at Mercedes for 2022. It will be spectacular.
Siao7 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 11:54 am
And especially for Mercedes, Schumacher along with Haug were the people who convinced the Merc board to pour more money in the team and bring Toto, which evolved to today's monster team.
It's the perfect storm though, his retirement at the end of 2012 allows people to stretch his contribution despite the constant change of personnel, team structure and team culture since unless we are all pretending Schumacher was some kind of prophet. Ross Brawn and Bob Bell departed, Paddy Lowe came and went, James Allison arrived. It's hard to credit Schumacher with the ship of Theseus Mercedes is today.
So Alonso is "mentally weak" for e.g. accusing Renault of sabotage in 2006, or for failing to fully galvanise McLaren around him in 2007, culminating in blackmail? Or for screaming GP2 engine? Senna must have been feeble minded, grabbing drivers by the collar when things went wrong and peddling conspiracy theories that Balestre was out to get him and was helping Prost? The list goes on. Why label drivers "mentally weak" for simply venting frustrations or saying things in the heat of the moment?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:28 pm
by Asphalt_World
myattitude wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:45 pm
Asphalt_World wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:42 pm
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:38 pm
A.J. wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 1:01 pm
JV stirring the pot with his take on this - as with a broken clock, he's also right sometimes:
“Michael and Ayrton have won with cars they didn’t have to win, in complicated situations, without the support of the team.
“Lewis, on the other hand, has always dominated with the best means and with internal support. We should see it without these two conditions.”
https://www.planetf1.com/news/jacques-v ... chumacher/
When did Schumacher win without the support of his team? Seriously, it is getting more and more absurd!
Even in the case of Senna, I wonder when did he not have the support of his team?
It was that race in 99 when his entire team decided to take the weekend off. Michael did everything, changed all 4 tyres during pit stops, built the car for the race, sorted strategy and cooked the meals for himself. I'm surprised you've forgotten that race!
By the way, I'm a huge admirer of Schumacher's speed, but he never won a race without a great team around him.
This is the sort of comment I read regularly with detractors of Schumacher's team leadership. I reckon people who say things like that have never led a team in their lives or else they'd know better. The whole point of being a team leader is that you DON'T do things like change tyres or design engines, but lead the people who do.
I have never ever detracted from Schumacher's team leadership.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:02 pm
by DOLOMITE
"instrumental", yep that's a common one too. I just find it frustrating that there are no examples of the kind of things he did. If I was to go as far as describing a member of my team at work as "instrumental" I like to think I'd be able to then cite plenty of examples that justify that. Things like they galvanised, motivated, inspired etc are all very nice, but how? By working late and buying gifts? By his performances on Sunday afternoons? Maybe it is just as simple as these things, I don't know.
My gut feel is that he was the perfect driver for the team, but equally they had the perfect principal, strategist, designer, engine etc etc.
And please I am not for one second trying to belittle his driving abilities. But whilst I would agree that for a while Schu was in a different league to the rest of the grid I also think Ferrari as a team were above the other teams by a similar margin.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:48 pm
by Invade
The notion that Hamilton is mentally weak is one of the most absurd currently being pedalled in all of sport on the internet right now - lol.
Acting out? Sure. Sometimes volatile? Yes. Mentally weak?
No.
Mentally less strong than Schumacher? Maybe. But then again maybe not.
Mental strength manifests itself in MANY ways. Is Hamilton as mentally strong and forceful a character as Schumacher in galvanising a team? No. But then how is Schumacher's mental strength in very high pressure situations? We've seen much better.
There's decision making in the moment, long-term planning, ability to rebound from disappointment, tactical acumen, motivation to work hard, willingness to improve, so on, so forth.
Imagine ACTUALLY claiming that Hamilton is, by definition as an overall bottomline conclusion, mentally weak. This isn't some binary simplistic debate where if A is the paragon of strength then B is the epitome of weakness.
Get outta here.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:52 pm
by Invade
DOLOMITE wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:02 pm
"instrumental", yep that's a common one too. I just find it frustrating that there are no examples of the kind of things he did. If I was to go as far as describing a member of my team at work as "instrumental" I like to think I'd be able to then cite plenty of examples that justify that. Things like they galvanised, motivated, inspired etc are all very nice, but how? By working late and buying gifts? By his performances on Sunday afternoons? Maybe it is just as simple as these things, I don't know.
My gut feel is that he was the perfect driver for the team, but equally they had the perfect principal, strategist, designer, engine etc etc.
And please I am not for one second trying to belittle his driving abilities. But whilst I would agree that for a while Schu was in a different league to the rest of the grid I also think Ferrari as a team were above the other teams by a similar margin.
So who do you think wins if Schumacher and Hamilton are teammates for 7 years at Mercedes?
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:52 pm
by mikeyg123
Hamilton is mentally very strong. Just in a totally different way to the likes of Schumacher.
In character I always think Hamilton is very similar to Mansell. Especially earlier in his career.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:57 pm
by Invade
One aspect of mental strength where both Schumacher and Hamilton are ferocious is the desire to keep winning and winning.
We don't know, but I doubt someone like Ricciardo has this trait. If he had joined Mercedes instead of Hamilton in 2013/14 then by this point he'd have probably been sated and lost his edge.
Not everyone has that maniacal desire. Rosberg certainly didn't - lol.
Vettel and Alonso also have that sort of mindset of Schumacher and Hamilton. It's not THAT rare, but there are many very talented drivers who, put in similar situations to succeed, probably wouldn't have sustained their desire.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:29 pm
by mikeyg123
Invade wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:57 pm
One aspect of mental strength where both Schumacher and Hamilton are ferocious is the desire to keep winning and winning.
We don't know, but I doubt someone like Ricciardo has this trait. If he had joined Mercedes instead of Hamilton in 2013/14 then by this point he'd have probably been sated and lost his edge.
Not everyone has that maniacal desire. Rosberg certainly didn't - lol.
Vettel and Alonso also have that sort of mindset of Schumacher and Hamilton. It's not THAT rare, but there are many very talented drivers who, put in similar situations to succeed, probably wouldn't have sustained their desire.
You see Hamilton is a different breed to regular folk like me when you see him race for 3rd against Gasly in Brazil 2019. He'd already won the championship, he's finished on the podium on well over 100 occasions. Everything we know says that yet another 3rd place should mean nothing to him. Yet there he is millimetres from Gasly at near 200MPH on possibly the most dangerous stretch of track on the calendar.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2021 10:47 pm
by F1Tyrant
Invade wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:48 pm
The notion that Hamilton is mentally weak is one of the most absurd currently being pedalled in all of sport on the internet right now - lol.
Acting out? Sure. Sometimes volatile? Yes. Mentally weak? No.
To clarify my stance, Hamilton is very mentally strong and determined but until about 2018, he was fundamentally insecure. He couldn't convince McLaren to back him after 2009 and I think he struggled to convince himself.
Hamilton has had the perverse notion he must best his teammates on equal terms even when it bit him on the bum in 2011 and 2016. Note how that pretence has been dropped with Bottas. Hamilton sees him as a wingman.
Schumacher was always secure in the knowledge he was the best on the grid since halfway through 1994. There were probably some doubt in 1999 but for most of that time he was supremely secure.
That makes a huge difference.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:39 am
by Schumacher forever#1
Invade wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 9:48 pm
The notion that Hamilton is mentally weak is one of the most absurd currently being pedalled in all of sport on the internet right now - lol.
Acting out? Sure. Sometimes volatile? Yes. Mentally weak?
No.
Mentally less strong than Schumacher? Maybe. But then again maybe not.
Mental strength manifests itself in MANY ways. Is Hamilton as mentally strong and forceful a character as Schumacher in galvanising a team? No. But then how is Schumacher's mental strength in very high pressure situations? We've seen much better.
There's decision making in the moment, long-term planning, ability to rebound from disappointment, tactical acumen, motivation to work hard, willingness to improve, so on, so forth.
Imagine ACTUALLY claiming that Hamilton is, by definition as an overall bottomline conclusion, mentally weak. This isn't some binary simplistic debate where if A is the paragon of strength then B is the epitome of weakness.
Get outta here.
I think you could say that about 2021 Hamilton - a Hamilton that has won as much or more than any other F1 driver. In many respects, he has very little to lose now, and says himself that his desire to continue racing is from his passion from racing itself. He is looking forward to fighting Verstappen because he's not had much of a challenge the past number of years - and as a result has not had to mentally fight through problems. The worst result was usually second place, a completely different reality to spending years fighting tooth and nail for 17th place with a GP2 engine for example.
Hamilton is mentally in a much different place because he has both matured, and has had his success and legacy created in F1. Hamilton in the early 10's, when he was scrapping for wins and trying to make a name for himself was mentally in a much different place. Examples of such would be tweeting sensitive information from a poor qualifying result, saying he isn't friends with Rosberg, or sometimes giving up in races where he was put on a terrible strategy. Rosberg admitted to directly targeting Hamilton in this area because he knew it was a weak point.
In my opinion, Schumacher didn't need to wait until he had 'completed' F1 - he was already an animal in terms of mental strength the moment he stepped into an F1 car.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:54 am
by myattitude
Another telling comment:
__________________________________
Vowles, the chief strategist, says he was not such a team player when he first joined.
“When he joined us, he was a mercenary,” he said on the Beyond the Grid podcast.
“He was here for himself to win races. That desire to win hasn’t disappeared, but what he’s realised is you do it with a team, and as a part of a team, and you become the greatest sportsman that exists as a result of it.
__________________________________
So he was a mercenary when he joined the team - something never ever attributed to Schumacher. More recently, Hamilton has come to realise the importance of working as a team. Good.
It's very easy to appreciate the team when they are delivering for you though. Now we really need to see how he is if things go downhill. I think he will revert to type.
Re: Hamilton vs Schumacher and their contemporaries (split from Official Hamilton Thread)
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2021 1:25 pm
by KingVoid
Paolo_Lasardi wrote: ↑Fri Apr 09, 2021 8:35 am
This is exactly the kind of analysis I am referring to: comparing an ideal Schumacher season with Rosberg's real season ...
The projections on Schumacher's points assume that all tyre strategies would have played out without any unexpected drop- offs. However, those are a main characteristic of 2012. And neither Mercedes nor Schumacher was particularly good with the Pirelli tyres.
For instance, I recently re-watched Cina 2012: Schumacher was nowhere on the way to second, no chance.
No misfortunes for Rosberg?
Being crashed out in Suzuka, Korea and Abu Dhabi from the top of my head, being innocent in at least two of the three incidents ( don't remember details of the third) - just to start with ...
Two bad qualifying positions due to technical issues ...
Regarding China, at the end of the day there was more than a 20 second gap between Rosberg (winner) and Button (second). Schumacher would have fitted nicely in that gap.
Rosberg being crashed out in Suzuka, Korea and Abu Dhabi cost him no points, or 1-2 points at most because by that point in the season Mercedes was slower than everyone apart from the 3 new teams.
Schumacher was better on his tyres than Rosberg in 2012 on weekends where a reasonable comparison could be made.