Schumacher wasnt as bad as you all thought?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

His second career was an absolute farce.

His second career was little more than fun. Only a fool would have thought that a 40 something could emulate what had gone before. Schumacher himself admitted that. Mercedes got something out of having him start the team... and he obviously got a kick out of driving an F1 car for a few more seasons.

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

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

I'm not sure that Rosberg ever lowered or raised his game. He has always been a very quick driver - his outstanding pre-F1 credentials are evidence of that - it's just that he's never had a decent car under him for most of the time he's driven in F1.

[Knowlesy]

There is no evidence, it just looks that way to me really. Rosberg just seemed undermotivated in comparison to 2010 and a bit of 2011. The team was stale, there was no progress. His driving looked complacent and lazy.

This year he at least has a new teammate to try and beat which has probably refocussed him somewhat.

It reminded me of Jenson in 2008. Honda were still awful and he seemed to be drifting and Barrichello was making the most of rare opportunities. However, come next season, he had a good car and he got his mojo back. It is simple human nature. You need that dangling carrot, so to speak.

[Paradise City]

Schumacher would've fancied his chances at wins though not the WC stepping into what was the reigning WC team. A guy of his stellar standard would've been disappointed at his form during those two seasons.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

Schumacher would've fancied his chances at wins though not the WC stepping into what was the reigning WC team. A guy of his stellar standard would've been disappointed at his form during those two seasons.

If he'd been driving a Red Bull it's entirely possible that he would have won... Rosberg too. The Merc just wasn't up to the job and still isn't. He seemed to be very chilled out on his return... the steely 'win at all costs' mentality retired with him the first time around.

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by davyboy

If he'd been driving a Red Bull it's entirely possible that he would have won... Rosberg too. The Merc just wasn't up to the job and still isn't. He seemed to be very chilled out on his return... the steely 'win at all costs' mentality retired with him the first time around.

He was very philosophical about things and his composure was good but without the benefit of the hindsight we have now he wouldn't have come back if Brawn had not of won the WC year before and he didn't think he could've had a crack at a win or two much like Button and Barrichello did the year before.

[Knowlesy]

I don't think the win at all costs attitude retired with him first time around at all. He was still throwing his car at the likes of Barrichello for tenth place.

Three years of awkwardness and rictus grins.

[Razzzor]

Originally Posted by Knowlesy

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

I think Rosberg is the only one who would know if that's true or not. Just because he's had two poles doesn't mean much - the car could be faster this year than 2012.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Paradise City

He was very philosophical about things and his composure was good but without the benefit of the hindsight we have now he wouldn't have come back if Brawn had not of won the WC year before and he didn't think he could've had a crack at a win or two much like Button and Barrichello did the year before.

Have you followed his forays back to karting these past few years ? If you have, it's fairly obvious that his return to F1 was nothing more than thrill seeking... the enjoyment of driving and racing. Of course he wouldn't have turned down a win here or there... but that wasn't the sole purpose of his return. Unlike Coulthard, Hakkinen, Alesi etc... Schumacher could do it in F1 whereas the others had to make do with DTM, GTs etc...

[Paradise City]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Have you followed his forays back to karting these past few years ? If you have, it's fairly obvious that his return to F1 was nothing more than thrill seeking... the enjoyment of driving and racing. Of course he wouldn't have turned down a win here or there... but that wasn't the sole purpose of his return. Unlike Coulthard, Hakkinen, Alesi etc... Schumacher could do it in F1 whereas the others had to make do with DTM, GTs etc...

I think you are weaving a weird myth of your own to counter the weird mythologies of the anti-Schumacher brigade. Don't think that his comeback was a lark. Schumacher didn't make a comeback so he could make a display of himself on the world stage.

Karting, DTM, GT are niche categories outside of the global spotlight. The sports' retired big shots can have fun there and it won't attract anyone's attention outside of the trade.

A return to F1 for statistically the sports biggest icon; that's a radically different proposition. That's a BIG multiyear project that demands commitment and he would not have been unmoved by the appalling luck he had, his struggles to make tyres work..etc. Schumacher was committed, philosophical in defeat but committed.

[jedrinck]

Originally Posted by formerf1champ

Do you even believe what you've written?

Yeah.

[Nicholosophy]

TL;DR

Schumacher (presumably Michael, not Ralf) was a great driver. So was Senna, Hakkinen, Prost, Lauda, and many more before them. Even today there are a group of drivers who are a different class of driver than the rest of the field. I'd put Vettel, Raikonen, Alonso, and Hamilton in that group but time will tell whether they stay there or are joined by Rosberg, Perez, etc.

To pick one driver as THE BEST seems redundant. F1 of the 1950s is completely different to F1 of today. Could Fangio have done what he did if there were 20 races? Or if he had to deal with modern aerodynamics? We'll never know of course.

To have an opinion that Driver A is better than Driver B is one thing. To swear black and blue that Driver A was the best and everyone else is wrong just doesn't make sense. It can only be a subjective arguement.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by davyboy

If he'd been driving a Red Bull it's entirely possible that he would have won....

That sounds suspiciously close to a 'trained monkey' quote to me.......

[formerf1champ]

Originally Posted by beau1

What about a driver that gets the most out of their tyres at the right times?...

Good question. I had to think about it for a little while. I think there may be two ways to look at it. If you're saying Schu/Ferrari knew the right time to get most out of the tyres, I would put that down to being a good competitor and he/the team being thorough to maximise their pace. However, if everyone knew when the "right times" were, and Schu/Ferrari were still quicker, then I would put that down to a better driver or driving and the better car.

Originally Posted by beau1

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

I was a little confused here. Because I think were mix'n'matching tyre stops of today and fuel stop from the past. Either way, everyone know when to do their fast laps in (before and/or after the stops). Also, if you refer to chillibowl's original post about the French GP, he was told what to do by Brawn, it wasn't Schu making the decision on the run. The same applied with another one of Schu better known wins, '98 Hungary.

Originally Posted by beau1

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

Hmm, you had me stumped here for a while. I did not know what to type. I'll start by saying that, had the Williams FW14B/15C not been so dominant, and had Mansell not gone to Indycars for a couple of years, I suspect we'd be seeing a very different F1 today.

Before the rule change in '94, "the plot" was simple. You'd start the race, race, finish the race. Whatever happened, happened. Nowadays, "the plot" is trying to run the same script every race, either to combat the popularity of another class or make fans who are not as easily satisfied happy. If we're talking about the reputation of the better drivers from before the '94 season, nobody is talking about how great they were at something as lame as entering/exiting the pits.

"Wow, did you see Mansell at the '87 British GP??? How was his in/out lap???"

[formerf1champ]

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

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

Kempi, I understand satisfaction you may get out of it, and I understand the significance of these moments in modern day F1. Instead of maybe using "full bore", maybe it better to say it's a soft challenge for driving that is made significant, when it shouldn't.

There's a reason why the pit entry in particular, is an area where a lot of time can be gained and lost. It's an awkward road to drive hard on, and you're not really meant to be driving there hard in the first place. I would liken it to approaching a yellow flag, heaps of time can be gained/lost in yellow flags. It's hardly the great driving/racing challenge/skill. What's going to happen next? Fans start talking about pit lanes with the same enthusiasm as what fans talk about Eau Rouge and Parabolica?

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

That sounds suspiciously close to a 'trained monkey' quote to me.......

If he'd been driving a Red Bull, he definitely would not have won... and that's an indisputable fact !

(It seems the 'training' didn't work)

[chris406]

He was still respectable and made a good game of it even at the twilight of his career.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by chris406

He was still respectable and made a good game of it even at the twilight of his career.

And finally proved better than Rosberg last year!