F1 discussion
crayzayjay
01-29-2003, 01:41 PM
... split from this (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/t83166.html) thread. Alex
I know exactly what you mean, but for me a great F1 race beats a great rally. I know there havent been as many of late, but i was just saying the sport is getting a lot of stick cos all the other teams cant get their act together. And my response to that is: their tough sh*t !! :D
I know exactly what you mean, but for me a great F1 race beats a great rally. I know there havent been as many of late, but i was just saying the sport is getting a lot of stick cos all the other teams cant get their act together. And my response to that is: their tough sh*t !! :D
RallyRaider
01-29-2003, 03:40 PM
What is this, talking F1 on a Rally thread? The last decent F1 race I can remember was Spa 2000, not that I've actually managed to stay awake thorough a whole race lately.
Yes, F1 sucks of late, it is not because Ferrari are dominating but because of the fact they refuse to actually race. All the 'after-you'ing and trying to engineer a dead heat (bollocks!) has turned the pinnacle of motorsport into trophy collecting, stat generating bore.
Domination has been a common occurrence in F1 through the years. The difference before is that when the likes of McLaren and Williams are on top they actually allow some sort of competition between their drivers. 1986/7, 1988/9, 1996, had some great races despite the winning cars being head and shoulders above the rest of the field.
Look at Peugeot last year, sure they won about 10 of the 14 events but not once was one of the Peugeot drivers reigned in by the team. Look at Panizzi on the tarmac rounds. If Todt or Montezzemelo had been running things would he have been allowed to finish in front of Gronholm or Burns?
Sadly however it probably won't be long before things turn sour in Rallying. Malcom Wilson of Ford's M-Sport tended to impose team orders for his favourite McRae whenever possible. And if the stages on events keep getting shorter and the repeats more frequent, eventually the Monte will become a two hour event of 100 laps of the GP street circuit!
Opps sorry for the rant
Yes, F1 sucks of late, it is not because Ferrari are dominating but because of the fact they refuse to actually race. All the 'after-you'ing and trying to engineer a dead heat (bollocks!) has turned the pinnacle of motorsport into trophy collecting, stat generating bore.
Domination has been a common occurrence in F1 through the years. The difference before is that when the likes of McLaren and Williams are on top they actually allow some sort of competition between their drivers. 1986/7, 1988/9, 1996, had some great races despite the winning cars being head and shoulders above the rest of the field.
Look at Peugeot last year, sure they won about 10 of the 14 events but not once was one of the Peugeot drivers reigned in by the team. Look at Panizzi on the tarmac rounds. If Todt or Montezzemelo had been running things would he have been allowed to finish in front of Gronholm or Burns?
Sadly however it probably won't be long before things turn sour in Rallying. Malcom Wilson of Ford's M-Sport tended to impose team orders for his favourite McRae whenever possible. And if the stages on events keep getting shorter and the repeats more frequent, eventually the Monte will become a two hour event of 100 laps of the GP street circuit!
Opps sorry for the rant
crayzayjay
01-30-2003, 01:24 PM
You make many good points, but i understand why Ferrari have TO's:
1) Williams and McLaren allow their drivers to race eachother, and look where it gets them, especially Williams: Schumi Jr and JPM hate eachother's guts, race eachother off the track.
2) F1 is a big $$$$$$$ business. you cant blame Ferrari for wanting to win the championship, and for that to happen they have to give the best driver priority, and thats Schumi....
sorry for getting this thread off-track :D
1) Williams and McLaren allow their drivers to race eachother, and look where it gets them, especially Williams: Schumi Jr and JPM hate eachother's guts, race eachother off the track.
2) F1 is a big $$$$$$$ business. you cant blame Ferrari for wanting to win the championship, and for that to happen they have to give the best driver priority, and thats Schumi....
sorry for getting this thread off-track :D
RallyRaider
01-30-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
1) Williams and McLaren allow their drivers to race eachother, and look where it gets them, especially Williams: Schumi Jr and JPM hate eachother's guts, race eachother off the track.
Team orders are a part of racing, McLaren used them in 1998 to ensure their first championship in years. Ferrari were right to use them in similar circumstances in 2000. However after achieving the big one McLaren allowed their drives to race in 1999, 2000 and 2001, making Mika's 1999 championship sweeter (although Schmi's injury was unfortunate). Did Ferrari need team orders in the past two years? No, the trophies were in the bag in record time, but they continued to treat Rubens as a second class citizen anyway.
Teammates not getting on is a good thing! Makes for strong competition, remember the battles of Prost and Senna or Mansel and Piquet?
Originally posted by crayzayjay
2) F1 is a big $$$$$$$ business. you cant blame Ferrari for wanting to win the championship, and for that to happen they have to give the best driver priority, and thats Schumi....
Exacty $$$$$$$ is all that matters for a team like Ferrari. I prefer the racing spirit and love of competing at Minardi or of the late Ken Tyrrell thank you very much.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
sorry for getting this thread off-track :D
Hey, as our esteemed moderator Alex used to say - It's my thread I'll do what I want with it! :flipa:
1) Williams and McLaren allow their drivers to race eachother, and look where it gets them, especially Williams: Schumi Jr and JPM hate eachother's guts, race eachother off the track.
Team orders are a part of racing, McLaren used them in 1998 to ensure their first championship in years. Ferrari were right to use them in similar circumstances in 2000. However after achieving the big one McLaren allowed their drives to race in 1999, 2000 and 2001, making Mika's 1999 championship sweeter (although Schmi's injury was unfortunate). Did Ferrari need team orders in the past two years? No, the trophies were in the bag in record time, but they continued to treat Rubens as a second class citizen anyway.
Teammates not getting on is a good thing! Makes for strong competition, remember the battles of Prost and Senna or Mansel and Piquet?
Originally posted by crayzayjay
2) F1 is a big $$$$$$$ business. you cant blame Ferrari for wanting to win the championship, and for that to happen they have to give the best driver priority, and thats Schumi....
Exacty $$$$$$$ is all that matters for a team like Ferrari. I prefer the racing spirit and love of competing at Minardi or of the late Ken Tyrrell thank you very much.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
sorry for getting this thread off-track :D
Hey, as our esteemed moderator Alex used to say - It's my thread I'll do what I want with it! :flipa:
ales
01-30-2003, 03:59 PM
Nothing wrong with constructive discussion. ;) And it is indeed your thread. :p
Exacty $$$$$$$ is all that matters for a team like Ferrari. I prefer the racing spirit and love of competing at Minardi or of the late Ken Tyrrell thank you very much.
Beg to differ. Ferrari are probably the most passionate team out there. It's their passion that leads them to maximize every situation. And they're good at it too, aren't they?
20 years of winning nothing had a sobering effect on the team, one can't stay "playful" when everyone around is starting to become extremely professional. Like McLaren, probably the most professional and organized team out there. Barring Silverstone 2002 - :lol2: @ them! But now Ferrari are in that position, and while I understand that "generic" F1 viewers don't see the need in team orders, I, as a Ferrari and MS fan don't want the drivers to race each other. There, I said it. I don't want any animosity between them, I don't want them to tak each other out in the races (happened before), I don't want them to lose the title becase the two teammated have taken too many points from each other (happened before). So even with the domination we've seen in 2002 I can honestly say that I started enjoying the season much more after France. Call me paranoid, but I was afraid something could go terribly wrong. Macs almost lost the championship in '99 because they were allowed to race (and DC took Mika out at Austria - :lol2: @ them again). And had DC not let Mika through in Melbourne '98 I think MS would not have stalled in Suzuka. ;)
It doesn't bother me that Ferraris (at least one of them) disappear into the distance - I'm very well entertaned by battles further down the field. And it's up to those teams to catch up. And they will, don't worry. Hope not too soon though (wonder if Macs's secret weapon is all it's cracked up to be:))
Alex
Exacty $$$$$$$ is all that matters for a team like Ferrari. I prefer the racing spirit and love of competing at Minardi or of the late Ken Tyrrell thank you very much.
Beg to differ. Ferrari are probably the most passionate team out there. It's their passion that leads them to maximize every situation. And they're good at it too, aren't they?
20 years of winning nothing had a sobering effect on the team, one can't stay "playful" when everyone around is starting to become extremely professional. Like McLaren, probably the most professional and organized team out there. Barring Silverstone 2002 - :lol2: @ them! But now Ferrari are in that position, and while I understand that "generic" F1 viewers don't see the need in team orders, I, as a Ferrari and MS fan don't want the drivers to race each other. There, I said it. I don't want any animosity between them, I don't want them to tak each other out in the races (happened before), I don't want them to lose the title becase the two teammated have taken too many points from each other (happened before). So even with the domination we've seen in 2002 I can honestly say that I started enjoying the season much more after France. Call me paranoid, but I was afraid something could go terribly wrong. Macs almost lost the championship in '99 because they were allowed to race (and DC took Mika out at Austria - :lol2: @ them again). And had DC not let Mika through in Melbourne '98 I think MS would not have stalled in Suzuka. ;)
It doesn't bother me that Ferraris (at least one of them) disappear into the distance - I'm very well entertaned by battles further down the field. And it's up to those teams to catch up. And they will, don't worry. Hope not too soon though (wonder if Macs's secret weapon is all it's cracked up to be:))
Alex
crayzayjay
01-30-2003, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by RallyRaider
Did Ferrari need team orders in the past two years? No, the trophies were in the bag in record time, but they continued to treat Rubens as a second class citizen anyway.
Teammates not getting on is a good thing! Makes for strong competition, remember the battles of Prost and Senna or Mansel and Piquet?
Well, look at what happened in '99. Michael broke his leg and Mikka won the flukiest championship ever. Had Mike not had the accident im confident he would have won that championship. So, in 2000, with the Ferrari package strong, the team maximises its chances because, as we saw in '99, you never know whats gonna happen... when you put so much time, effort and money into something you want to maximise everything, so yes, ferrari did the right thing. Hindsight (such a wonderful thing) tells us Ferrari would have probably won that championship no matter what. But there and then, they werent in a position to know that so they didnt take any chances. Makes sense to me.
About the teammates thing, Prost and Senna almost killed eachother, took eachother out, basically not a very good idea for a team to have drivers do that. If the championship looks like its going to Schumi Jr or JPM you can bet your ass one of them would take the other one out. And thats not what racing is, according to you, so :p
Exacty $$$$$$$ is all that matters for a team like Ferrari. I prefer the racing spirit and love of competing at Minardi or of the late Ken Tyrrell thank you very much.
Minardi are "about racing" cos thats all they can ever be, they want to be everyone's second team if you know what i mean... they'd swap it for a pile of cash though, no doubt about it. Anyway, there's only one team in F1 that actually races, and thats Ferrari. The others seem to be amateurs
Did Ferrari need team orders in the past two years? No, the trophies were in the bag in record time, but they continued to treat Rubens as a second class citizen anyway.
Teammates not getting on is a good thing! Makes for strong competition, remember the battles of Prost and Senna or Mansel and Piquet?
Well, look at what happened in '99. Michael broke his leg and Mikka won the flukiest championship ever. Had Mike not had the accident im confident he would have won that championship. So, in 2000, with the Ferrari package strong, the team maximises its chances because, as we saw in '99, you never know whats gonna happen... when you put so much time, effort and money into something you want to maximise everything, so yes, ferrari did the right thing. Hindsight (such a wonderful thing) tells us Ferrari would have probably won that championship no matter what. But there and then, they werent in a position to know that so they didnt take any chances. Makes sense to me.
About the teammates thing, Prost and Senna almost killed eachother, took eachother out, basically not a very good idea for a team to have drivers do that. If the championship looks like its going to Schumi Jr or JPM you can bet your ass one of them would take the other one out. And thats not what racing is, according to you, so :p
Exacty $$$$$$$ is all that matters for a team like Ferrari. I prefer the racing spirit and love of competing at Minardi or of the late Ken Tyrrell thank you very much.
Minardi are "about racing" cos thats all they can ever be, they want to be everyone's second team if you know what i mean... they'd swap it for a pile of cash though, no doubt about it. Anyway, there's only one team in F1 that actually races, and thats Ferrari. The others seem to be amateurs
RallyRaider
01-30-2003, 05:10 PM
Hey Alex can you move these last few posts to the F1 forum somehow. I was happy to talk a bit of F1 here but now am a bit upset my nice Monte thread is becoming tainted with F1 fisticuffs :p
I'd be happy to discuss all of these points inthe F1 Forum but for the moment I will say - bollocks to the lot of you :lol2:
I'd be happy to discuss all of these points inthe F1 Forum but for the moment I will say - bollocks to the lot of you :lol2:
ales
01-30-2003, 05:14 PM
Done.
RallyRaider
01-30-2003, 05:32 PM
Boy that was quick Alex - you are so talented!
Okay, where to we start. How about Mika's 'flukey' 1999 Championship. Here is an interesting exercise - add up the points for Hakkinen and Schumacher for just the races both competed in, you can even give Mikey boy full points for Malyasia if you want. Who comes out on top? Anything more is just speculation.
On second thought the disqualification of both Ferraris from Sepang should stand. It was only some shonky lawyer speak and a complicit court, plus Bernies interst in TV ratings, that got them off the hook there.
http://www.soft-toon.demon.co.uk/f199/bf1699.gif
Okay, where to we start. How about Mika's 'flukey' 1999 Championship. Here is an interesting exercise - add up the points for Hakkinen and Schumacher for just the races both competed in, you can even give Mikey boy full points for Malyasia if you want. Who comes out on top? Anything more is just speculation.
On second thought the disqualification of both Ferraris from Sepang should stand. It was only some shonky lawyer speak and a complicit court, plus Bernies interst in TV ratings, that got them off the hook there.
http://www.soft-toon.demon.co.uk/f199/bf1699.gif
crayzayjay
01-30-2003, 05:36 PM
With Mikka's wobbly form post-schumi-crash, and if Irvine took him all the way, MS would have had him buried. Besides the Ferrari got better as the season went on
RallyRaider
01-30-2003, 05:41 PM
wooda couuda shooda.... Didn't!
Ferrari was the best car of 1999, but Mika still took the crown any way you care to look at it (red misted imaginations excluded :p). Team orders possibly backfired for Ferrari in the end.
Makes me so sad that Mika Salo had to move over for Irvine at Hockenheim. Hate Todt and Brawn for that!
Ferrari was the best car of 1999, but Mika still took the crown any way you care to look at it (red misted imaginations excluded :p). Team orders possibly backfired for Ferrari in the end.
Makes me so sad that Mika Salo had to move over for Irvine at Hockenheim. Hate Todt and Brawn for that!
crayzayjay
01-30-2003, 05:53 PM
red-mist eh? hehehehe.. im jus sayin.. and im not dwelling on the past, whats done is done... if mikka had driven the way he drove for the rest of that season with michael still around he wouldnt have been a double champ... a lot of people think that too, we can't all have the red-mist... unless its contagious of course :p
Veyron
01-30-2003, 06:06 PM
Mika is the only driver of recent years with the speed and skills to hang with MS, IMO:)
RallyRaider
01-30-2003, 06:09 PM
crayzayjay,
It is all in your imagination, how did Mika do in those races Michael missed?
Silverstone - the race Schumi injured himself - Mika was leading till his wheel fell off!
Austria - taken out by his team mate on the first lap! Drive throught the field to finish third.
Hockenheim - In the lead till a fueling malfunction followed by a tyre blow out at 200mph.
Hungary - Won it.
Spa - Second to Coulthard - no team orders.
Monza - Threw the race away with an error.
Nurburgring - Was close behind leader Frentzen till the rain came down and McLaren, as usual, got the strategy wrong. They fueled him up to the brim, but he chased down Irvine in the end for a couple of points.
So he only made the one mistake, plus a percieved poor performance at the Nurburgring, due to the commentators not having a clue what was going on i.e. he was out of sync with a fuel heavy car.
Of course the Team Schumacher fans won't see things that way. Don't know why. 'The Chin' has won enough real championships - why the need to award him imaginary ones as well?
It is all in your imagination, how did Mika do in those races Michael missed?
Silverstone - the race Schumi injured himself - Mika was leading till his wheel fell off!
Austria - taken out by his team mate on the first lap! Drive throught the field to finish third.
Hockenheim - In the lead till a fueling malfunction followed by a tyre blow out at 200mph.
Hungary - Won it.
Spa - Second to Coulthard - no team orders.
Monza - Threw the race away with an error.
Nurburgring - Was close behind leader Frentzen till the rain came down and McLaren, as usual, got the strategy wrong. They fueled him up to the brim, but he chased down Irvine in the end for a couple of points.
So he only made the one mistake, plus a percieved poor performance at the Nurburgring, due to the commentators not having a clue what was going on i.e. he was out of sync with a fuel heavy car.
Of course the Team Schumacher fans won't see things that way. Don't know why. 'The Chin' has won enough real championships - why the need to award him imaginary ones as well?
Veyron
01-30-2003, 06:20 PM
I never said he was as good as MS. Mika doesn't have the brains that MS has, that is, not as smart or racing smarts either one. Given that, Mika had speed and incredible car control, just not as consistantly as MS. Don't pigeon hole me, boy!:flipa:
RallyRaider
01-30-2003, 06:25 PM
Sorry Veyron, my post was in response to Crayzayjay's above yours.
I absolutely agree with you Veyron, Mika was my favourite F1 driver since he drove for Lotus. I think he was better than Schumi - the series isn't the same since he retired :(
And Schumacher doesn't have brains - he has Brawn!
I absolutely agree with you Veyron, Mika was my favourite F1 driver since he drove for Lotus. I think he was better than Schumi - the series isn't the same since he retired :(
And Schumacher doesn't have brains - he has Brawn!
NSX
01-30-2003, 08:59 PM
freakray
01-31-2003, 09:41 AM
I don't really want to get involved, but I want to add a little info....
In a side-by-side evaluation of Mika and Michael, taking into account every aspect of F1 driving from a drivers perspective and totally ignoring the car's influence, it was found that Mika is the better driver.
I know a lot of people didn't want to hear that, because everyone thinks Michael is so great, but it was a comparison done on paper in 'ideal' circumstances from every angle.
I still think Mika is the only driver of the current generation that was ever a threat to Michael, and I have stopped watching many a race because the heavens opened and Michael drove away from the rest of the field.
Now you can all flame me.....
Ray
In a side-by-side evaluation of Mika and Michael, taking into account every aspect of F1 driving from a drivers perspective and totally ignoring the car's influence, it was found that Mika is the better driver.
I know a lot of people didn't want to hear that, because everyone thinks Michael is so great, but it was a comparison done on paper in 'ideal' circumstances from every angle.
I still think Mika is the only driver of the current generation that was ever a threat to Michael, and I have stopped watching many a race because the heavens opened and Michael drove away from the rest of the field.
Now you can all flame me.....
Ray
Veyron
01-31-2003, 10:10 AM
Now you can all flame me.....
No flames here, I would agree. MS's most important asset is his ability to make race winning decisions on the starting grid, and of course his car control ain't bad either. As a side note, I have a taped race on VHS from 1993 when MS was in the Benetton with the latest evo Ford V8, Senna was in the MP4/8 with supposedly the previous evo Ford V8. I believe it was Spa, MS was ahead of Senna, but Senna got by. Shame we didn't get to see Senna and MS dual for a few years.:(
No flames here, I would agree. MS's most important asset is his ability to make race winning decisions on the starting grid, and of course his car control ain't bad either. As a side note, I have a taped race on VHS from 1993 when MS was in the Benetton with the latest evo Ford V8, Senna was in the MP4/8 with supposedly the previous evo Ford V8. I believe it was Spa, MS was ahead of Senna, but Senna got by. Shame we didn't get to see Senna and MS dual for a few years.:(
Guido
02-01-2003, 08:07 AM
I really hate it when people start to defend their hero with statements like "if, then, else" With this logic I can make Bertrand Gachot World Champion. The guy who got jailed in 1991 in the UK and consequently Schumi took his seat in Spa that year at Jordan for just 1 race, remember.
Here is what I mean with that: If Senna didn't die in Imalo, Schumi would not have been WC in 94 and if Hill wasn't so stressed in '95, Hill would have been twice WC. leaving Schumi with only 3 under his belt. You know what I mean. That doesn't make any sense at all. The things are what they are, period.
Mika was a quicker driver then Schumi over a single lap. Schumi has admitted that, and Mika has pulled some manouvres out of his car that scared the shit out of Michael - Spa 2000.
It is what it is. Schumi is one of the greatest drivers of HIS era, together with Mika. Just like Prost and Senna were during the 80/90's and Lauda during the 70/80 and so on. Schumi is just NOT the greatest of all times because most of his succes, although he still have to drive the car of-course, come from the fat and firm contracts he has, done by a certain Willy Weber, who is after all a money machine. And that of course is also a just what it is.
Nevertheless, I look forward to another season. I'm just patiently waiting till Williams or Mclaren take the top spoils again. And really looking forward to the excuses the Red Brigade will have ready by then. :D
Here is what I mean with that: If Senna didn't die in Imalo, Schumi would not have been WC in 94 and if Hill wasn't so stressed in '95, Hill would have been twice WC. leaving Schumi with only 3 under his belt. You know what I mean. That doesn't make any sense at all. The things are what they are, period.
Mika was a quicker driver then Schumi over a single lap. Schumi has admitted that, and Mika has pulled some manouvres out of his car that scared the shit out of Michael - Spa 2000.
It is what it is. Schumi is one of the greatest drivers of HIS era, together with Mika. Just like Prost and Senna were during the 80/90's and Lauda during the 70/80 and so on. Schumi is just NOT the greatest of all times because most of his succes, although he still have to drive the car of-course, come from the fat and firm contracts he has, done by a certain Willy Weber, who is after all a money machine. And that of course is also a just what it is.
Nevertheless, I look forward to another season. I'm just patiently waiting till Williams or Mclaren take the top spoils again. And really looking forward to the excuses the Red Brigade will have ready by then. :D
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by RallyRaider
'The Chin' has won enough real championships - why the need to award him imaginary ones as well?
hehe, :D i didnt award it to him, im not deluded enough to do that. it may surprise you to know that some Chin fans such as myself are intelligent enough to admit that Michael makes mistakes, and Silverstone was a big mistake. Irvine clearly suckered him into it. My point is Mikka's form for the rest of the season was not exactly outstanding. Frentzen and Herbert won races that season, for crying out loud... That Mikka only edged the sublimely talented Irvine leads me to believe if MS was around he would have scored a few more points than Eddie. Remember, Ferrari made bad mistakes that didnt help Irvine's cause either. And if you can bring yourself to remembering MS's immediate impact on returning in Malaysia, maybe you can understand why i feel that Michael racing the whole season would have meant the Ferrari challenge would have been substantially strengthened not only through his superior talent over Eddie but also his development of the car. Thats why i believe, and there are many out there who agree with me, (and theyre not all the red brigade) that if MS was around he would have probably taken that title. Thats my opinion, simple as that. Im not gonna go through race by race but i didnt think Mikka was outstanding that season. Again, my opinion.
'The Chin' has won enough real championships - why the need to award him imaginary ones as well?
hehe, :D i didnt award it to him, im not deluded enough to do that. it may surprise you to know that some Chin fans such as myself are intelligent enough to admit that Michael makes mistakes, and Silverstone was a big mistake. Irvine clearly suckered him into it. My point is Mikka's form for the rest of the season was not exactly outstanding. Frentzen and Herbert won races that season, for crying out loud... That Mikka only edged the sublimely talented Irvine leads me to believe if MS was around he would have scored a few more points than Eddie. Remember, Ferrari made bad mistakes that didnt help Irvine's cause either. And if you can bring yourself to remembering MS's immediate impact on returning in Malaysia, maybe you can understand why i feel that Michael racing the whole season would have meant the Ferrari challenge would have been substantially strengthened not only through his superior talent over Eddie but also his development of the car. Thats why i believe, and there are many out there who agree with me, (and theyre not all the red brigade) that if MS was around he would have probably taken that title. Thats my opinion, simple as that. Im not gonna go through race by race but i didnt think Mikka was outstanding that season. Again, my opinion.
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by freakray
In a side-by-side evaluation of Mika and Michael, taking into account every aspect of F1 driving from a drivers perspective and totally ignoring the car's influence, it was found that Mika is the better driver.
I know a lot of people didn't want to hear that, because everyone thinks Michael is so great, but it was a comparison done on paper in 'ideal' circumstances from every angle.
I still think Mika is the only driver of the current generation that was ever a threat to Michael, and I have stopped watching many a race because the heavens opened and Michael drove away from the rest of the field.
Now you can all flame me.....
Ray
Please dont take this as a flame, im just gonna disagree ok? :D
Out of curiosity, who did this evaluation?
anyway, i believe talent can best be weighed up in difficult circumstances. In F1 this can only mean rain. MS along with Senna are probably the two best wet-weather racers. Does Mikka come even remotely close to this? sadly i believe not. to me, this test is about natural talent. finding the limit and not going over it is what great talent is, no matter what the conditions are. on a greasy track, mikka just didnt convince me. on the great drivers' tracks, in rain or not, Michael is simply outstanding and more consistent than Mikka.
its so easy to undermine Schumacher's natural talent because he gets so much praise for his technical feedback and involvement with developing the car. so its all too common for anti-schumis to come out with the "oh, his talent is not bad, but he only wins cos he's in such a good car". Nothing makes me laugh more. Look at what this guy did in his first years at Ferrari, in which the cars were so bad my 1.6L Golf would have probably beaten them around a track. Mikka has had outstanding moments where he has shown his ability as a racer, but to compare those to Michael's, i just cant. Michael's intelligence, ability to go through the field, intimidate those in front of him and ultimately pass them are unmatched by Mikka and IMO not even Senna. Michael never seemed to fade away in a race as Mikka often did. He was always there, always pushing, always fast. Put them in the same car and you'll have a great battle but i believe Michael will win out.
People in F1 openly express their amazement at his talent, none less so than Frank Williams, former boss of Senna, Prost etc... michael could have joined any team he wanted to at any point in his career... doesnt that say enough? when it comes to racing, i dont think anyone in the last 20 years, including Senna is as good as michael, though i cant say i ever had the privilege of watching Fangio or Moss.
In a side-by-side evaluation of Mika and Michael, taking into account every aspect of F1 driving from a drivers perspective and totally ignoring the car's influence, it was found that Mika is the better driver.
I know a lot of people didn't want to hear that, because everyone thinks Michael is so great, but it was a comparison done on paper in 'ideal' circumstances from every angle.
I still think Mika is the only driver of the current generation that was ever a threat to Michael, and I have stopped watching many a race because the heavens opened and Michael drove away from the rest of the field.
Now you can all flame me.....
Ray
Please dont take this as a flame, im just gonna disagree ok? :D
Out of curiosity, who did this evaluation?
anyway, i believe talent can best be weighed up in difficult circumstances. In F1 this can only mean rain. MS along with Senna are probably the two best wet-weather racers. Does Mikka come even remotely close to this? sadly i believe not. to me, this test is about natural talent. finding the limit and not going over it is what great talent is, no matter what the conditions are. on a greasy track, mikka just didnt convince me. on the great drivers' tracks, in rain or not, Michael is simply outstanding and more consistent than Mikka.
its so easy to undermine Schumacher's natural talent because he gets so much praise for his technical feedback and involvement with developing the car. so its all too common for anti-schumis to come out with the "oh, his talent is not bad, but he only wins cos he's in such a good car". Nothing makes me laugh more. Look at what this guy did in his first years at Ferrari, in which the cars were so bad my 1.6L Golf would have probably beaten them around a track. Mikka has had outstanding moments where he has shown his ability as a racer, but to compare those to Michael's, i just cant. Michael's intelligence, ability to go through the field, intimidate those in front of him and ultimately pass them are unmatched by Mikka and IMO not even Senna. Michael never seemed to fade away in a race as Mikka often did. He was always there, always pushing, always fast. Put them in the same car and you'll have a great battle but i believe Michael will win out.
People in F1 openly express their amazement at his talent, none less so than Frank Williams, former boss of Senna, Prost etc... michael could have joined any team he wanted to at any point in his career... doesnt that say enough? when it comes to racing, i dont think anyone in the last 20 years, including Senna is as good as michael, though i cant say i ever had the privilege of watching Fangio or Moss.
RallyRaider
02-01-2003, 09:36 AM
I thought the Silverstone 1999 accident was due to brake failure?
Agreed Schumacher should have taken the title in 1999, he had a superior car to Mika. It is a testment to Mikas skill that he manged to score more points than Michael in the races they competed together. And also managed to single handely defeat the two man Ferrari effort. Remember Eddie was gifted two races by his teammate, Mika was deprived of the same number. First Austria where Coulthard took him out and second Spa where DC was given free reign to win - and deservedly so. No such freedom for Salo.
And would Mika have lost concentration and spun off at Italy if he had Schumacher on his tail? Fun to speculate but it is all a load of codswallop! Everything would have been different if Schumacher had been fit. Mika operated best under pressure as he showed at Suzuka 1999. Micky is at best suspect when the thumbsrews are tightended, hence the need for Bernie and Bridgestine to fix Suzuka 2000.
In fact the guy who probably deserved the 1999 championship most was Frentzen, although there is a bit of suspicion surrounding some 'mods' on the Jordan that year. And don't put Johnny Herbert down, if he hadn't had a big accident in F3000 in 1988 that almost destroyed his feet, he could have been far more successful. I like the guy and was extremely happy to see him win at the Nurburgring.
Sorry about all this speculation Huudo. I agree about Weber, don't know if it is through skill or just dumb luck but he has perfectly stagemanaged the Schumacher brother's careers. Only hitch has been Montoya devaluing Ralf of late.
Agreed Schumacher should have taken the title in 1999, he had a superior car to Mika. It is a testment to Mikas skill that he manged to score more points than Michael in the races they competed together. And also managed to single handely defeat the two man Ferrari effort. Remember Eddie was gifted two races by his teammate, Mika was deprived of the same number. First Austria where Coulthard took him out and second Spa where DC was given free reign to win - and deservedly so. No such freedom for Salo.
And would Mika have lost concentration and spun off at Italy if he had Schumacher on his tail? Fun to speculate but it is all a load of codswallop! Everything would have been different if Schumacher had been fit. Mika operated best under pressure as he showed at Suzuka 1999. Micky is at best suspect when the thumbsrews are tightended, hence the need for Bernie and Bridgestine to fix Suzuka 2000.
In fact the guy who probably deserved the 1999 championship most was Frentzen, although there is a bit of suspicion surrounding some 'mods' on the Jordan that year. And don't put Johnny Herbert down, if he hadn't had a big accident in F3000 in 1988 that almost destroyed his feet, he could have been far more successful. I like the guy and was extremely happy to see him win at the Nurburgring.
Sorry about all this speculation Huudo. I agree about Weber, don't know if it is through skill or just dumb luck but he has perfectly stagemanaged the Schumacher brother's careers. Only hitch has been Montoya devaluing Ralf of late.
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by huudo
Mika was a quicker driver then Schumi over a single lap. Schumi has admitted that
Please dont be offended, but this is laughable. Every driver in F1 thinks he's the fastest (apart from EI :D ) and to admit something like this they may as well retire. So to say that Schumi said something like this is ridiculous. Ever heard of the press taking something out of context? Most likely scenario, and this is ignoring the fact that this is a concocted statement, is that MS said MH was quicker than him in a particular race weekend. No more than that, otherwise it would have reverberated around a lot more than it has, which is... umm.. never
Mika was a quicker driver then Schumi over a single lap. Schumi has admitted that
Please dont be offended, but this is laughable. Every driver in F1 thinks he's the fastest (apart from EI :D ) and to admit something like this they may as well retire. So to say that Schumi said something like this is ridiculous. Ever heard of the press taking something out of context? Most likely scenario, and this is ignoring the fact that this is a concocted statement, is that MS said MH was quicker than him in a particular race weekend. No more than that, otherwise it would have reverberated around a lot more than it has, which is... umm.. never
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by RallyRaider
I agree about Weber, don't know if it is through skill or just dumb luck but he has perfectly stagemanaged the Schumacher brother's careers.
i think anti-red-mist is more powerful than red mist. Michael might, and please, i say might, enough with the attacks on speculation, this is just what people do, we all speculate... where was i? oh yeah... had michael not gone for the challenge (obviously sweetened by $) of joining a sh*tty team he might have 6 or 7 championships by now. To say his success is down to which teams he joined is ridiculous because he could have jumped ship from year to year just as Fangio did and had a leading team every year, instead of leaving himself in the cold in his early years at Ferrari. He took on a challenge and developed an empire at Ferrari. Cheap jibes made about MS's success are exactly that, cheap
I agree about Weber, don't know if it is through skill or just dumb luck but he has perfectly stagemanaged the Schumacher brother's careers.
i think anti-red-mist is more powerful than red mist. Michael might, and please, i say might, enough with the attacks on speculation, this is just what people do, we all speculate... where was i? oh yeah... had michael not gone for the challenge (obviously sweetened by $) of joining a sh*tty team he might have 6 or 7 championships by now. To say his success is down to which teams he joined is ridiculous because he could have jumped ship from year to year just as Fangio did and had a leading team every year, instead of leaving himself in the cold in his early years at Ferrari. He took on a challenge and developed an empire at Ferrari. Cheap jibes made about MS's success are exactly that, cheap
ales
02-01-2003, 09:53 AM
I, as an ardent Schumacher fan, feel no need to defend him or prove anything. He's a 5-time World Champion.
Hope all discussion (on all sides) stays cool, informative, and respectful, I don't want this forum to turn into the pro-MS vs. anti-MS thing that is all too common in all other boards I visit.
Mika deserved his titles, both of them, there will be no argument on my side. And Michael deserved all 5 of his. Even JV deserved his. :p
Hope all discussion (on all sides) stays cool, informative, and respectful, I don't want this forum to turn into the pro-MS vs. anti-MS thing that is all too common in all other boards I visit.
Mika deserved his titles, both of them, there will be no argument on my side. And Michael deserved all 5 of his. Even JV deserved his. :p
RallyRaider
02-01-2003, 09:56 AM
I agree crayzayjay about the evaluation Ray alluded to. A bias is bound to creep in somewhere. It may not be intentional but it would be very difficult to consider every possibility without skewing things one way or the other just a little bit.
Concerning Schumacher's wet weather driving, yes he does seem to have something special there. A lot of it can be put down to Ferrari having theire own test track with a sprinkler system or exclusive use of the spare car that allows him to try two setups and choose at the very last moment or special knowledge of new tyres or a whole lot more. But, most of the time he does appear on a different plane to the rest of the field in the wet. Although even holding all the cards, he does get it wrong from time to time - strangely he doesn't seem to like Interlagos when it is damp!
The other point you raised was that of the first few Ferrari's he drove. No that is completely wrong, sure the 310 of 1996 was unreliable but both drivers were very quick in it at times. It was of course not as good as the Williams, definitely no worse than the rest of the field. Indeed Ferrari just pipped Benetton to second in the constructors championship. Benetton were similarly unreliable that year. Both Alesi and Berger had races seemingly in the bag only to breakbown. In Berger's case he was only two laps away from winning at Hockenheim when his Renault exploded.
As for 1997, by the end of the year the 310B was a match for the Williams in speed and bulletproof in it's reliability. In fact with the new points system, that awards points down to eighth, he would have scored more points than Villeneuve, despite having won less races. Kind of indicates why Max's new system is rubbish.....
Concerning Schumacher's wet weather driving, yes he does seem to have something special there. A lot of it can be put down to Ferrari having theire own test track with a sprinkler system or exclusive use of the spare car that allows him to try two setups and choose at the very last moment or special knowledge of new tyres or a whole lot more. But, most of the time he does appear on a different plane to the rest of the field in the wet. Although even holding all the cards, he does get it wrong from time to time - strangely he doesn't seem to like Interlagos when it is damp!
The other point you raised was that of the first few Ferrari's he drove. No that is completely wrong, sure the 310 of 1996 was unreliable but both drivers were very quick in it at times. It was of course not as good as the Williams, definitely no worse than the rest of the field. Indeed Ferrari just pipped Benetton to second in the constructors championship. Benetton were similarly unreliable that year. Both Alesi and Berger had races seemingly in the bag only to breakbown. In Berger's case he was only two laps away from winning at Hockenheim when his Renault exploded.
As for 1997, by the end of the year the 310B was a match for the Williams in speed and bulletproof in it's reliability. In fact with the new points system, that awards points down to eighth, he would have scored more points than Villeneuve, despite having won less races. Kind of indicates why Max's new system is rubbish.....
ales
02-01-2003, 10:03 AM
1996 Ferrari was third best at best :) Surely, Benetton were faster than Ferrari, and Williams were head and shoulders ahead of everyone else.
1997 Ferrari indeed improved as the year went by, and was close to the williams by the end of the year, but what good is being close by the end of the year and it wasn't quite on par with them anyway.
1998 would have been very different if the regulations hadn't changed. And it turned out that Macs made a car that lapped everyone in the first race. Surely you'll agree that developing that car to the poin when it was able to take the championship to the wire is the best indication of MS's and Ferrari's commitment.
I, for one, also hope that someone makes a car better than Ferrari at the beginning of the season. You can count on Michael to give you all excitment trying 110% with an inferior car and taking the championship all the way and showing the rest the meaning of "catching up". In 2002 Ferrari seemed to be even more ahead of the others in Suzuka.
1997 Ferrari indeed improved as the year went by, and was close to the williams by the end of the year, but what good is being close by the end of the year and it wasn't quite on par with them anyway.
1998 would have been very different if the regulations hadn't changed. And it turned out that Macs made a car that lapped everyone in the first race. Surely you'll agree that developing that car to the poin when it was able to take the championship to the wire is the best indication of MS's and Ferrari's commitment.
I, for one, also hope that someone makes a car better than Ferrari at the beginning of the season. You can count on Michael to give you all excitment trying 110% with an inferior car and taking the championship all the way and showing the rest the meaning of "catching up". In 2002 Ferrari seemed to be even more ahead of the others in Suzuka.
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by RallyRaider
Concerning Schumacher's wet weather driving, yes he does seem to have something special there. A lot of it can be put down to Ferrari having theire own test track with a sprinkler system or exclusive use of the spare car that allows him to try two setups and choose at the very last moment or special knowledge of new tyres or a whole lot more. But, most of the time he does appear on a different plane to the rest of the field in the wet. Although even holding all the cards, he does get it wrong from time to time - strangely he doesn't seem to like Interlagos when it is damp!
The other point you raised was that of the first few Ferrari's he drove. No that is completely wrong, sure the 310 of 1996 was unreliable but both drivers were very quick in it at times. It was of course not as good as the Williams, definitely no worse than the rest of the field. Indeed Ferrari just pipped Benetton to second in the constructors championship. Benetton were similarly unreliable that year. Both Alesi and Berger had races seemingly in the bag only to breakbown. In Berger's case he was only two laps away from winning at Hockenheim when his Renault exploded.
As for 1997, by the end of the year the 310B was a match for the Williams in speed and bulletproof in it's reliability. In fact with the new points system, that awards points down to eighth, he would have scored more points than Villeneuve, despite having won less races. Kind of indicates why Max's new system is rubbish.....
Youre seriously gonna tell me Michael's performance in Barcelona '96 is down to sprinklers? :rolleyes: Youre really not giving anything away here: he "seems" to have "something special" in the wet? Youre hardly being fair here. we're not gonna get anywhere like this. At least i admit that Mikka's has natural talent, why dont you come right out and say things as they are? a point i forgot to make earlier about Mikka is that he had superior equipment and race engineers to DC :p
the '96 ferrari was widely acknowledged to be a dog, that's all i can say... it really wasnt very fast at all... both drivers were very fast at times and the car was no worse than anything else in the field? lets look at the standings, Williams first and second, Schumi in the Ferrari 3rd, then you have to go all the way down to 10th to find his teammate. The reason Michael made up the time on the superior competition is down to his talent, no doubt about it. how many times have you heard industry insiders say Michael has a 0.3s/lap advantage over other drivers through superior talent? im in no position to confirm or deny that, but people say it for a reason.. The '96 wasnt a good car and it took some time before the Ferrari could challenge for championships, yet Michael was always there or thereabouts, his teammate lagging behind. how do you explain that?
Concerning Schumacher's wet weather driving, yes he does seem to have something special there. A lot of it can be put down to Ferrari having theire own test track with a sprinkler system or exclusive use of the spare car that allows him to try two setups and choose at the very last moment or special knowledge of new tyres or a whole lot more. But, most of the time he does appear on a different plane to the rest of the field in the wet. Although even holding all the cards, he does get it wrong from time to time - strangely he doesn't seem to like Interlagos when it is damp!
The other point you raised was that of the first few Ferrari's he drove. No that is completely wrong, sure the 310 of 1996 was unreliable but both drivers were very quick in it at times. It was of course not as good as the Williams, definitely no worse than the rest of the field. Indeed Ferrari just pipped Benetton to second in the constructors championship. Benetton were similarly unreliable that year. Both Alesi and Berger had races seemingly in the bag only to breakbown. In Berger's case he was only two laps away from winning at Hockenheim when his Renault exploded.
As for 1997, by the end of the year the 310B was a match for the Williams in speed and bulletproof in it's reliability. In fact with the new points system, that awards points down to eighth, he would have scored more points than Villeneuve, despite having won less races. Kind of indicates why Max's new system is rubbish.....
Youre seriously gonna tell me Michael's performance in Barcelona '96 is down to sprinklers? :rolleyes: Youre really not giving anything away here: he "seems" to have "something special" in the wet? Youre hardly being fair here. we're not gonna get anywhere like this. At least i admit that Mikka's has natural talent, why dont you come right out and say things as they are? a point i forgot to make earlier about Mikka is that he had superior equipment and race engineers to DC :p
the '96 ferrari was widely acknowledged to be a dog, that's all i can say... it really wasnt very fast at all... both drivers were very fast at times and the car was no worse than anything else in the field? lets look at the standings, Williams first and second, Schumi in the Ferrari 3rd, then you have to go all the way down to 10th to find his teammate. The reason Michael made up the time on the superior competition is down to his talent, no doubt about it. how many times have you heard industry insiders say Michael has a 0.3s/lap advantage over other drivers through superior talent? im in no position to confirm or deny that, but people say it for a reason.. The '96 wasnt a good car and it took some time before the Ferrari could challenge for championships, yet Michael was always there or thereabouts, his teammate lagging behind. how do you explain that?
ales
02-01-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
the '96 ferrari was widely acknowledged to be a dog
I feel re comfortable using the term boat as I actually think dogs are fast :)
the '96 ferrari was widely acknowledged to be a dog
I feel re comfortable using the term boat as I actually think dogs are fast :)
RallyRaider
02-01-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
i think anti-red-mist is more powerful than red mist. Michael might, and please, i say might, enough with the attacks on speculation, this is just what people do, we all speculate... where was i? oh yeah... had michael not gone for the challenge (obviously sweetened by $) of joining a sh*tty team he might have 6 or 7 championships by now. To say his success is down to which teams he joined is ridiculous because he could have jumped ship from year to year just as Fangio did and had a leading team every year, instead of leaving himself in the cold in his early years at Ferrari. He took on a challenge and developed an empire at Ferrari. Cheap jibes made about MS's success are exactly that, cheap
Okay half of that went straight over my head, sorry about that.
What I ment with the Weber jibe is how well he has groomed the Schumachers. How the hell did ralf get a Williams seat after he was handed his ass by Fisichella at Jordan for instance. Then there is the whole sordid Walkinshaw deal that saw Michael transfered to Benetton after one race start for Jordan.
Of course Schumachers success is down to the teams he has joined. There was the big four of Formula One teams in the early nineties, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Benetton. No team outside this elete group has won a F1 championship since 1978. And even then that was Andretti for Lotus, not exactly a lesser team in the history of F1!
When Schumi moved form Benetton to Ferrari it was anything but a step down to a 'sh*tty team'. Interms of history, resourses, potential for success and most importantly money, it completed Weber's strategy to take his client the top of the heap. When I say money was the most important I mean to Weber, he doesn't get his name in the record books, he is the manager and like all beancounters only wants the cash.
Of course you could skew it the other way and say Micheal is the only driver to ever win a Championship for Benetton. Given 1995 was just an incredible season from him. We won't mention 1994...
i think anti-red-mist is more powerful than red mist. Michael might, and please, i say might, enough with the attacks on speculation, this is just what people do, we all speculate... where was i? oh yeah... had michael not gone for the challenge (obviously sweetened by $) of joining a sh*tty team he might have 6 or 7 championships by now. To say his success is down to which teams he joined is ridiculous because he could have jumped ship from year to year just as Fangio did and had a leading team every year, instead of leaving himself in the cold in his early years at Ferrari. He took on a challenge and developed an empire at Ferrari. Cheap jibes made about MS's success are exactly that, cheap
Okay half of that went straight over my head, sorry about that.
What I ment with the Weber jibe is how well he has groomed the Schumachers. How the hell did ralf get a Williams seat after he was handed his ass by Fisichella at Jordan for instance. Then there is the whole sordid Walkinshaw deal that saw Michael transfered to Benetton after one race start for Jordan.
Of course Schumachers success is down to the teams he has joined. There was the big four of Formula One teams in the early nineties, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Benetton. No team outside this elete group has won a F1 championship since 1978. And even then that was Andretti for Lotus, not exactly a lesser team in the history of F1!
When Schumi moved form Benetton to Ferrari it was anything but a step down to a 'sh*tty team'. Interms of history, resourses, potential for success and most importantly money, it completed Weber's strategy to take his client the top of the heap. When I say money was the most important I mean to Weber, he doesn't get his name in the record books, he is the manager and like all beancounters only wants the cash.
Of course you could skew it the other way and say Micheal is the only driver to ever win a Championship for Benetton. Given 1995 was just an incredible season from him. We won't mention 1994...
RallyRaider
02-01-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
Youre seriously gonna tell me Michael's performance in Barcelona '96 is down to sprinklers?
Not at all, but it explains how Ferrari were able to use the new intermediates at Sepang 2001. McLaren for instance hadn't tested them, so didn't use them until too late.
Schumacher was supreme in the wet at Catlaunya. However just a few weeks earler he was dusted by Hill in wet conditions at Iterlagos. How come Schumacher could overcome the "dog of a car" in one set of conditions but not the other? Answer: there is a lot more going on than the casual obseerver knows about. Simplistic lables do not apply.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
he "seems" to have "something special" in the wet? Youre hardly being fair here.
Don't know where you come from but around these parts acknowledging that some one is 'special' means they have a special talent i.e. it is a complement. I'm agreeing with you man - he's good!
Originally posted by crayzayjay
the '96 ferrari was widely acknowledged to be a dog, that's all i can say... it really wasnt very fast at all
Bet there were at least 18 drivers on the 1996 grid who would have sold their grandmothers to swap their midfield/backmarker car for a 310! It was not a championship wining car, therefore Schumacher didn't win the championship in it. Seems logical :rolleyes:. Just becaus it wasn't first all the time doesn't make it the worst car ever.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
how many times have you heard industry insiders say Michael has a 0.3s/lap advantage over other drivers through superior talent?
Funny how this advantage has dropped over the years, supposedly it used to be a second a lap :flipa:
Youre seriously gonna tell me Michael's performance in Barcelona '96 is down to sprinklers?
Not at all, but it explains how Ferrari were able to use the new intermediates at Sepang 2001. McLaren for instance hadn't tested them, so didn't use them until too late.
Schumacher was supreme in the wet at Catlaunya. However just a few weeks earler he was dusted by Hill in wet conditions at Iterlagos. How come Schumacher could overcome the "dog of a car" in one set of conditions but not the other? Answer: there is a lot more going on than the casual obseerver knows about. Simplistic lables do not apply.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
he "seems" to have "something special" in the wet? Youre hardly being fair here.
Don't know where you come from but around these parts acknowledging that some one is 'special' means they have a special talent i.e. it is a complement. I'm agreeing with you man - he's good!
Originally posted by crayzayjay
the '96 ferrari was widely acknowledged to be a dog, that's all i can say... it really wasnt very fast at all
Bet there were at least 18 drivers on the 1996 grid who would have sold their grandmothers to swap their midfield/backmarker car for a 310! It was not a championship wining car, therefore Schumacher didn't win the championship in it. Seems logical :rolleyes:. Just becaus it wasn't first all the time doesn't make it the worst car ever.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
how many times have you heard industry insiders say Michael has a 0.3s/lap advantage over other drivers through superior talent?
Funny how this advantage has dropped over the years, supposedly it used to be a second a lap :flipa:
RallyRaider
02-01-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by ales
1996 Ferrari was third best at best :) Surely, Benetton were faster than Ferrari, and Williams were head and shoulders ahead of everyone else.
Yes at times Benetton were faster than Ferrari, at times the other way around. Funny how whenever Schumi is quick it is him, whenever Berger or Alesi is it's the car!
Originally posted by ales
1997 Ferrari indeed improved as the year went by, and was close to the williams by the end of the year, but what good is being close by the end of the year and it wasn't quite on par with them anyway.
Yes the 310B was second to the Williams in speed, compensated for this somewhat in reliability. In the end it was the second best car and finished second best in the standings. Despite an at times cockup of a season from Villeneuve.
Originally posted by ales
1998 would have been very different if the regulations hadn't changed. And it turned out that Macs made a car that lapped everyone in the first race. Surely you'll agree that developing that car to the poin when it was able to take the championship to the wire is the best indication of MS's and Ferrari's commitment.
In 1998 McLaren were a second a lap quicker out of the box because Bridgestone were better prepared for the new regulations than Goodyear. On equal footing the F300 may have been as good or better than the MP4/13, we'll never know. Certinly as a package the MacLaren was the car to have. Who knows what may have happened if Schumi hadn't choked at the last minute again.
Originally posted by ales
I, for one, also hope that someone makes a car better than Ferrari at the beginning of the season. You can count on Michael to give you all excitment trying 110% with an inferior car and taking the championship all the way and showing the rest the meaning of "catching up". In 2002 Ferrari seemed to be even more ahead of the others in Suzuka.
To quote Bart Simpson "100% by definition is the most we can give" :silly2:
1996 Ferrari was third best at best :) Surely, Benetton were faster than Ferrari, and Williams were head and shoulders ahead of everyone else.
Yes at times Benetton were faster than Ferrari, at times the other way around. Funny how whenever Schumi is quick it is him, whenever Berger or Alesi is it's the car!
Originally posted by ales
1997 Ferrari indeed improved as the year went by, and was close to the williams by the end of the year, but what good is being close by the end of the year and it wasn't quite on par with them anyway.
Yes the 310B was second to the Williams in speed, compensated for this somewhat in reliability. In the end it was the second best car and finished second best in the standings. Despite an at times cockup of a season from Villeneuve.
Originally posted by ales
1998 would have been very different if the regulations hadn't changed. And it turned out that Macs made a car that lapped everyone in the first race. Surely you'll agree that developing that car to the poin when it was able to take the championship to the wire is the best indication of MS's and Ferrari's commitment.
In 1998 McLaren were a second a lap quicker out of the box because Bridgestone were better prepared for the new regulations than Goodyear. On equal footing the F300 may have been as good or better than the MP4/13, we'll never know. Certinly as a package the MacLaren was the car to have. Who knows what may have happened if Schumi hadn't choked at the last minute again.
Originally posted by ales
I, for one, also hope that someone makes a car better than Ferrari at the beginning of the season. You can count on Michael to give you all excitment trying 110% with an inferior car and taking the championship all the way and showing the rest the meaning of "catching up". In 2002 Ferrari seemed to be even more ahead of the others in Suzuka.
To quote Bart Simpson "100% by definition is the most we can give" :silly2:
freakray
02-01-2003, 11:41 AM
This is specifically for crayzayjay.
Firstly, if you are going to talk about a driver, the spellling is MIKA, there is no second 'K' in that......
Yeah I do like Mika, and you like Michael, and you would be pissed off if I kept calling him Michelle wouldn't you!
Secondly, you said:
In F1 this can only mean rain. MS along with Senna are probably the two best wet-weather racers. Does Mikka come even remotely close to this?
There it is again, your inability to spell.....and I never alluded to Mika coming close to Michael in the rain, in fact I said:
and I have stopped watching many a race because the heavens opened and Michael drove away from the rest of the field.
Which to me seems to be me agreeing that Michael is faster in the rain, you do realise that the term 'the heavens opening' refers to rain don't you?
So, in future, before getting your underwear in a bunch, read what people post.....then they won't end up annoyed with you like I am now.
I don't recall who wrote the article, it was in a magazine a friend of mine in SA had, a motorsport magazine no less.
So you talk about atricles being written in a biased tone, yet your whole argument is biased as no matter what we say you are going to defend Michael and say he is better yet.
And if you think I dislike Michael, guess again son, I have a lot of respect for him as a driver, it is the team he drives for that disappoints me.
Sorry for the aggression, but you need to read more carefully.
Ray
Firstly, if you are going to talk about a driver, the spellling is MIKA, there is no second 'K' in that......
Yeah I do like Mika, and you like Michael, and you would be pissed off if I kept calling him Michelle wouldn't you!
Secondly, you said:
In F1 this can only mean rain. MS along with Senna are probably the two best wet-weather racers. Does Mikka come even remotely close to this?
There it is again, your inability to spell.....and I never alluded to Mika coming close to Michael in the rain, in fact I said:
and I have stopped watching many a race because the heavens opened and Michael drove away from the rest of the field.
Which to me seems to be me agreeing that Michael is faster in the rain, you do realise that the term 'the heavens opening' refers to rain don't you?
So, in future, before getting your underwear in a bunch, read what people post.....then they won't end up annoyed with you like I am now.
I don't recall who wrote the article, it was in a magazine a friend of mine in SA had, a motorsport magazine no less.
So you talk about atricles being written in a biased tone, yet your whole argument is biased as no matter what we say you are going to defend Michael and say he is better yet.
And if you think I dislike Michael, guess again son, I have a lot of respect for him as a driver, it is the team he drives for that disappoints me.
Sorry for the aggression, but you need to read more carefully.
Ray
dirk-diggler
02-01-2003, 12:37 PM
Ferrari are more into passion that into$$$$$$$$$??
Quit talkin jive man.:sun:
Quit talkin jive man.:sun:
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by freakray
This is specifically for crazyjay.
Firstly, if you are going to talk about a driver, the spellling is MIKA, there is no second 'K' in that......
Yeah I do like Mika, and you like Michael, and you would be pissed off if I kept calling him Michelle wouldn't you!
Secondly, you said:
Which to me seems to be me agreeing that Michael is faster in the rain, you do realise that the term 'the heavens opening' refers to rain don't you?
So, in future, before getting your underwear in a bunch, read what people post.....then they won't end up annoyed with you like I am now.
I don't recall who wrote the article, it was in a magazine a friend of mine in SA had, a motorsport magazine no less.
So you talk about atricles being written in a biased tone, yet your whole argument is biased as no matter what we say you are going to defend Michael and say he is better yet.
And if you think I dislike Michael, guess again son, I have a lot of respect for him as a driver, it is the team he drives for that disappoints me.
Sorry for the aggression, but you need to read more carefully.
Ray
For someone so anal about spelling, it must feel pretty stupid to mispell my name. So if i have an inability to spell, yours is just as bad. Im really curious as to what your excuse is for that one, please get back to me on that. Usually i dont care, cos im not anal, but since you are, time to start feelin stupid boy! Besides, Mikka is a name that is foreign to me so i think im allowed a little leeway, no?
And i didnt get my underwear in a bunch, i specifically said im not "flaming" anyone, so before getting your underwear in a bunch, buddy, realise im just giving my opinion and perfect spelling is really not essential. How would you feel if everytime you mispelt something someone brought it up in their reply? We're not at school, are we? No, so grow up.
I understand exactly what "the heavens opening" means, so before you undermine my intelligence, understand that i'm presenting my argument, where i link natural talent to wet-weather driving. You wrote that this article found that Mikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkka (having a heart attack?) was the better driver, but you acknowledged Schumacher's superiority in the wet. To me, those are conflicting arguments, but before you jump on me, i know the first one wasnt presented by you. Still with me? Good. Back to my post, all i did was say "if you prove your dominance in the wet you're numero uno". Thats my opinion, and i think im entitled to it. Isnt that what forums are about?
Ps. do get back to me on your inability to spell "crayzayjay", wont you? Much obliged
This is specifically for crazyjay.
Firstly, if you are going to talk about a driver, the spellling is MIKA, there is no second 'K' in that......
Yeah I do like Mika, and you like Michael, and you would be pissed off if I kept calling him Michelle wouldn't you!
Secondly, you said:
Which to me seems to be me agreeing that Michael is faster in the rain, you do realise that the term 'the heavens opening' refers to rain don't you?
So, in future, before getting your underwear in a bunch, read what people post.....then they won't end up annoyed with you like I am now.
I don't recall who wrote the article, it was in a magazine a friend of mine in SA had, a motorsport magazine no less.
So you talk about atricles being written in a biased tone, yet your whole argument is biased as no matter what we say you are going to defend Michael and say he is better yet.
And if you think I dislike Michael, guess again son, I have a lot of respect for him as a driver, it is the team he drives for that disappoints me.
Sorry for the aggression, but you need to read more carefully.
Ray
For someone so anal about spelling, it must feel pretty stupid to mispell my name. So if i have an inability to spell, yours is just as bad. Im really curious as to what your excuse is for that one, please get back to me on that. Usually i dont care, cos im not anal, but since you are, time to start feelin stupid boy! Besides, Mikka is a name that is foreign to me so i think im allowed a little leeway, no?
And i didnt get my underwear in a bunch, i specifically said im not "flaming" anyone, so before getting your underwear in a bunch, buddy, realise im just giving my opinion and perfect spelling is really not essential. How would you feel if everytime you mispelt something someone brought it up in their reply? We're not at school, are we? No, so grow up.
I understand exactly what "the heavens opening" means, so before you undermine my intelligence, understand that i'm presenting my argument, where i link natural talent to wet-weather driving. You wrote that this article found that Mikkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkka (having a heart attack?) was the better driver, but you acknowledged Schumacher's superiority in the wet. To me, those are conflicting arguments, but before you jump on me, i know the first one wasnt presented by you. Still with me? Good. Back to my post, all i did was say "if you prove your dominance in the wet you're numero uno". Thats my opinion, and i think im entitled to it. Isnt that what forums are about?
Ps. do get back to me on your inability to spell "crayzayjay", wont you? Much obliged
crayzayjay
02-01-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by RallyRaider
Okay half of that went straight over my head, sorry about that.
What I ment with the Weber jibe is how well he has groomed the Schumachers. How the hell did ralf get a Williams seat after he was handed his ass by Fisichella at Jordan for instance. Then there is the whole sordid Walkinshaw deal that saw Michael transfered to Benetton after one race start for Jordan.
Of course Schumachers success is down to the teams he has joined. There was the big four of Formula One teams in the early nineties, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Benetton. No team outside this elete group has won a F1 championship since 1978. And even then that was Andretti for Lotus, not exactly a lesser team in the history of F1!
When Schumi moved form Benetton to Ferrari it was anything but a step down to a 'sh*tty team'. Interms of history, resourses, potential for success and most importantly money, it completed Weber's strategy to take his client the top of the heap. When I say money was the most important I mean to Weber, he doesn't get his name in the record books, he is the manager and like all beancounters only wants the cash.
Of course you could skew it the other way and say Micheal is the only driver to ever win a Championship for Benetton. Given 1995 was just an incredible season from him. We won't mention 1994...
sorry, i was referring to the whole red-mist thing from before :D
you're right, WW has worked wonders for the Schumachers in terms of pay and drives, the latter mainly for Ralf, I still stick by the fact that Schumi could have gone wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.
yes, Ferrari has history, but at the time he joined the team, it was a shambles. so it was a step down, no question about it. the team has history, so what? at the time it was a mess, and thats all that counts! The fact the car has that pretty little horse on the front of it really makes no difference to how fast its gonna go!
We could ignore 1994, and although Senna outqualified Schumi in the first three races, Schumi won those races... could have been a hell of a year, but if what youre getting to is that that year shouldnt count, i think thats wrong. If not, my mistake.
I'll get back to you on the other posts tomorrow.... Saturday night, time to go out!
cheers,
Jay
Okay half of that went straight over my head, sorry about that.
What I ment with the Weber jibe is how well he has groomed the Schumachers. How the hell did ralf get a Williams seat after he was handed his ass by Fisichella at Jordan for instance. Then there is the whole sordid Walkinshaw deal that saw Michael transfered to Benetton after one race start for Jordan.
Of course Schumachers success is down to the teams he has joined. There was the big four of Formula One teams in the early nineties, Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Benetton. No team outside this elete group has won a F1 championship since 1978. And even then that was Andretti for Lotus, not exactly a lesser team in the history of F1!
When Schumi moved form Benetton to Ferrari it was anything but a step down to a 'sh*tty team'. Interms of history, resourses, potential for success and most importantly money, it completed Weber's strategy to take his client the top of the heap. When I say money was the most important I mean to Weber, he doesn't get his name in the record books, he is the manager and like all beancounters only wants the cash.
Of course you could skew it the other way and say Micheal is the only driver to ever win a Championship for Benetton. Given 1995 was just an incredible season from him. We won't mention 1994...
sorry, i was referring to the whole red-mist thing from before :D
you're right, WW has worked wonders for the Schumachers in terms of pay and drives, the latter mainly for Ralf, I still stick by the fact that Schumi could have gone wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.
yes, Ferrari has history, but at the time he joined the team, it was a shambles. so it was a step down, no question about it. the team has history, so what? at the time it was a mess, and thats all that counts! The fact the car has that pretty little horse on the front of it really makes no difference to how fast its gonna go!
We could ignore 1994, and although Senna outqualified Schumi in the first three races, Schumi won those races... could have been a hell of a year, but if what youre getting to is that that year shouldnt count, i think thats wrong. If not, my mistake.
I'll get back to you on the other posts tomorrow.... Saturday night, time to go out!
cheers,
Jay
ales
02-01-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by dirk-diggler
Ferrari are more into passion that into$$$$$$$$$??
Quit talkin jive man.:sun:
A question of supply and demand. At the end of 1995 Benetton, Ferrari, Williams and McLaren offered Schumacher a seat. Ferrari also offered more money than the others. Now ... I'm given a Ferrari seat and a lot of money ... I'll pass, thanks ... NOT! :rolleyes:
And at the end of 2004 I'm sure he'll be offered another astronomical sum (I've heard to $150 million, but who's counting), and in his place I would turn that one down immediately as well! NOT!!!! :rolleyes:
Ferrari are the only team that competed in every single F1 championship in history. It is bloody safe to say they are interested in winning at all cost - and they have invested so much in the F1 team and it's now paying off.
Ferrari are more into passion that into$$$$$$$$$??
Quit talkin jive man.:sun:
A question of supply and demand. At the end of 1995 Benetton, Ferrari, Williams and McLaren offered Schumacher a seat. Ferrari also offered more money than the others. Now ... I'm given a Ferrari seat and a lot of money ... I'll pass, thanks ... NOT! :rolleyes:
And at the end of 2004 I'm sure he'll be offered another astronomical sum (I've heard to $150 million, but who's counting), and in his place I would turn that one down immediately as well! NOT!!!! :rolleyes:
Ferrari are the only team that competed in every single F1 championship in history. It is bloody safe to say they are interested in winning at all cost - and they have invested so much in the F1 team and it's now paying off.
freakray
02-01-2003, 04:05 PM
Crayzayjay,
I apologise for mispselling your name, it is a foreign name to me so that should after all, allow me a little leeway.
Other than that, you really don't deserve much of an answer.
I apologise for mispselling your name, it is a foreign name to me so that should after all, allow me a little leeway.
Other than that, you really don't deserve much of an answer.
Guido
02-01-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
Please dont be offended, but this is laughable. Every driver in F1 thinks he's the fastest (apart from EI :D ) and to admit something like this they may as well retire. So to say that Schumi said something like this is ridiculous. Ever heard of the press taking something out of context? Most likely scenario, and this is ignoring the fact that this is a concocted statement, is that MS said MH was quicker than him in a particular race weekend. No more than that, otherwise it would have reverberated around a lot more than it has, which is... umm.. never
1) Taking something out of context is exactly what you are doing.
2) I refered to one lap, you are referring to a whole race. :confused:
MS fans are always feeling attacked when their sweet little star gets a bit of opposition or comments from other fans. I respect him as a race driver, for sure, I also said, "he still needs to drive the car" if you read correctly.
MS is NOT a God though and I have the impression that lot's of people see him like that, hence the fuming reactions we get when we put some questions on the table. When he needs to shit, he also has to lower his pants...
Please dont be offended, but this is laughable. Every driver in F1 thinks he's the fastest (apart from EI :D ) and to admit something like this they may as well retire. So to say that Schumi said something like this is ridiculous. Ever heard of the press taking something out of context? Most likely scenario, and this is ignoring the fact that this is a concocted statement, is that MS said MH was quicker than him in a particular race weekend. No more than that, otherwise it would have reverberated around a lot more than it has, which is... umm.. never
1) Taking something out of context is exactly what you are doing.
2) I refered to one lap, you are referring to a whole race. :confused:
MS fans are always feeling attacked when their sweet little star gets a bit of opposition or comments from other fans. I respect him as a race driver, for sure, I also said, "he still needs to drive the car" if you read correctly.
MS is NOT a God though and I have the impression that lot's of people see him like that, hence the fuming reactions we get when we put some questions on the table. When he needs to shit, he also has to lower his pants...
RallyRaider
02-01-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by crayzayjay
sorry, i was referring to the whole red-mist thing from before
you're right, WW has worked wonders for the Schumachers in terms of pay and drives, the latter mainly for Ralf, I still stick by the fact that Schumi could have gone wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.
Of course he could have, nobody is disputing that :rolleyes: he went for the cash and success that was the awakening Ferrari juggernaut. Didn't exactly pull a Fittipaldi, Hill or Villeneuve and move to a genuine backmarker did he?
Originally posted by crayzayjay
yes, Ferrari has history, but at the time he joined the team, it was a shambles. so it was a step down, no question about it. the team has history, so what? at the time it was a mess, and thats all that counts! The fact the car has that pretty little horse on the front of it really makes no difference to how fast its gonna go!
Ferrari was in a shambles in 1991/92. Since then they had been on a steady rise, thanks to some heads rolling post Prost's departure and the arrival of the little ex-Peugeot gnome, Todt. The also re-hired Barnard, injected some English disipline into the team in the form of Nigel Stepney. In short things were heading in the right direction. Schumacher is no fool and could see that. Look at their results from 1993 on. Won one race in 1994, one in 1995 (could have been more with luck), that trend continued when Schumacher joined, till the car has been dominant for the last four years. The reference to history is in terms of the fact Ferrari had won before and obviously could again not to any shiny badge. That was what I was on about with the big four.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
We could ignore 1994, and although Senna outqualified Schumi in the first three races, Schumi won those races... could have been a hell of a year, but if what youre getting to is that that year shouldnt count, i think thats wrong. If not, my mistake.
I said ingnore 1994 because there was a lot of nasty things going on that year. Allegations of cheating, Senna's death, black flag blunders, disqualifications, Schumacher's move on Hill at Adelaide. A year best forgotten. Sure, Mickey won it in the best car, but he couldn't have cut it any finer.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
I'll get back to you on the other posts tomorrow.... Saturday night, time to go out!
cheers,
Jay
Have fun, don't kill too many brain cells.
sorry, i was referring to the whole red-mist thing from before
you're right, WW has worked wonders for the Schumachers in terms of pay and drives, the latter mainly for Ralf, I still stick by the fact that Schumi could have gone wherever he wanted whenever he wanted.
Of course he could have, nobody is disputing that :rolleyes: he went for the cash and success that was the awakening Ferrari juggernaut. Didn't exactly pull a Fittipaldi, Hill or Villeneuve and move to a genuine backmarker did he?
Originally posted by crayzayjay
yes, Ferrari has history, but at the time he joined the team, it was a shambles. so it was a step down, no question about it. the team has history, so what? at the time it was a mess, and thats all that counts! The fact the car has that pretty little horse on the front of it really makes no difference to how fast its gonna go!
Ferrari was in a shambles in 1991/92. Since then they had been on a steady rise, thanks to some heads rolling post Prost's departure and the arrival of the little ex-Peugeot gnome, Todt. The also re-hired Barnard, injected some English disipline into the team in the form of Nigel Stepney. In short things were heading in the right direction. Schumacher is no fool and could see that. Look at their results from 1993 on. Won one race in 1994, one in 1995 (could have been more with luck), that trend continued when Schumacher joined, till the car has been dominant for the last four years. The reference to history is in terms of the fact Ferrari had won before and obviously could again not to any shiny badge. That was what I was on about with the big four.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
We could ignore 1994, and although Senna outqualified Schumi in the first three races, Schumi won those races... could have been a hell of a year, but if what youre getting to is that that year shouldnt count, i think thats wrong. If not, my mistake.
I said ingnore 1994 because there was a lot of nasty things going on that year. Allegations of cheating, Senna's death, black flag blunders, disqualifications, Schumacher's move on Hill at Adelaide. A year best forgotten. Sure, Mickey won it in the best car, but he couldn't have cut it any finer.
Originally posted by crayzayjay
I'll get back to you on the other posts tomorrow.... Saturday night, time to go out!
cheers,
Jay
Have fun, don't kill too many brain cells.
Xerxes
02-01-2003, 10:36 PM
personally, I like the new F1 rule changes. I think there should never have had traction control/launch control. I also think they should go back to FULL manual transmition. in F1, I believe that there should not be many driver aids. radio communication is fine, but 2-way telementary is not. as for team orders, it should not be allowed. I don't know if they do it, but the FIA should give each team a set freq., and the should keep ppl to monitor the radio waves. as for the trans, I think it should be fully manual, b/c it would show the drivers true ability to control that car. if the car kept on going towards the automatic side, then sooner or later, the driver would just sit there, and the computer would driver. I think F1 should try to challenge the drivers. goto challenging tracks. F1 (I think) should be @ the top of the racing triangle. I a skillfull driver should win, not the driver w/ most aids. ah well, that is what I think.
ales
02-02-2003, 02:53 AM
But isn't F1 also the pinnacle of racing technology? What's good about restricting the best cars in the world to the last century technology?
It's just that I'd want the semi-automatc geatboxes to stay. I always loved those paddles behind the steering wheels, and I know it might sound silly, but for me F1 will not be the F1 I was hooked on.:o
Alex
It's just that I'd want the semi-automatc geatboxes to stay. I always loved those paddles behind the steering wheels, and I know it might sound silly, but for me F1 will not be the F1 I was hooked on.:o
Alex
crayzayjay
02-02-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by freakray
Crayzayjay,
I apologise for mispselling your name, it is a foreign name to me so that should after all, allow me a little leeway.
Other than that, you really don't deserve much of an answer.
Pretty childish, exactly what i expected. You mispelt "mispelling", is that a foreign word too anal boy? :p
How ostentatious of you to tell me i dont deserve an answer when really its because you have nothing of any value to say.. But you know what? if your reply was going to be anything as insulting and rude as the first one you made to me, i think i speak on behalf of everyone when saying im glad you wont be replying.
Crayzayjay,
I apologise for mispselling your name, it is a foreign name to me so that should after all, allow me a little leeway.
Other than that, you really don't deserve much of an answer.
Pretty childish, exactly what i expected. You mispelt "mispelling", is that a foreign word too anal boy? :p
How ostentatious of you to tell me i dont deserve an answer when really its because you have nothing of any value to say.. But you know what? if your reply was going to be anything as insulting and rude as the first one you made to me, i think i speak on behalf of everyone when saying im glad you wont be replying.
ales
02-02-2003, 11:25 AM
Kids, play nice.
Anyone else thinks this thread has outlived itself?
Anyone else thinks this thread has outlived itself?
crayzayjay
02-02-2003, 11:30 AM
Im truly sorry for the way thats going Ales but i wasnt going to sit there and be insulted.
freakray
02-02-2003, 11:33 AM
Alex,
I was playing nice, which was why I didn't respond to him, I did not see the need to pursue the argument.
Just lock the thread so we can move onto something more constructive than name-calling and petty arguments.....which are really all single-sided anyway.
I was playing nice, which was why I didn't respond to him, I did not see the need to pursue the argument.
Just lock the thread so we can move onto something more constructive than name-calling and petty arguments.....which are really all single-sided anyway.
ales
02-02-2003, 11:33 AM
I think I will close this thread as the discussion has shifted from F1 to spelling. :o
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026