Blowing away the Schumi greatness smokescreen...
Discussion
I'm going to start putting together some vids on this subject. It's about time!
Belgium 1995. Sio many Schumi fans use this as a demo to point out how great he was. Nah. All this race proves is what a wet rsed fanny Hill was when it came to overtaking, especially in the wet.
Senna, Mansell, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Montoya etc. would've eaten Schumi at the first attempt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvAL7nnIF0
Er, discuss.
Belgium 1995. Sio many Schumi fans use this as a demo to point out how great he was. Nah. All this race proves is what a wet rsed fanny Hill was when it came to overtaking, especially in the wet.
Senna, Mansell, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Montoya etc. would've eaten Schumi at the first attempt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvAL7nnIF0
Er, discuss.
mattikake said:
I'm going to start putting together some vids on this subject. It's about time!
Belgium 1995. Sio many Schumi fans use this as a demo to point out how great he was. Nah. All this race proves is what a wet rsed fanny Hill was when it came to overtaking, especially in the wet.
Senna, Mansell, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Montoya etc. would've eaten Schumi at the first attempt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvAL7nnIF0
Er, discuss.
Which Prost was that? Was that the Prost who was lapped by Hill in an identical car in a very wet Donnington?Belgium 1995. Sio many Schumi fans use this as a demo to point out how great he was. Nah. All this race proves is what a wet rsed fanny Hill was when it came to overtaking, especially in the wet.
Senna, Mansell, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Montoya etc. would've eaten Schumi at the first attempt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvAL7nnIF0
Er, discuss.
And I assume that was the Hill who managed to stay on track when challenging MS for the title and had to be rammed off the circuit. Some fanny.
If that is the basis of your argument against MS then I'm afraid you haven't convinced this reader.
Yep totally agree with you, not so much a demonstration of Schumi being great but Hill being useless, but perhaps because this could have been the time Williams were looking elsewhere and Hill would have rather got a solid 2nd place than risk damaging the car, which is the sensible option (we all know what Schumacher is like!) but it's not that exciting for the fans.
Funnily enough, watching this reminds me of Kimi/Lewis at Spa 08.
And my final thought, I agree Schumacher wasn't that great, a combination of the then best car and management team around, along with being a cheating b
d in an Italian team later on in his career it's unsuprising he won everything. I reckon Lewis could have him. In the wet, both of them on slicks.
However, no driver will ever compare to Senna.
Funnily enough, watching this reminds me of Kimi/Lewis at Spa 08.
And my final thought, I agree Schumacher wasn't that great, a combination of the then best car and management team around, along with being a cheating b
d in an Italian team later on in his career it's unsuprising he won everything. I reckon Lewis could have him. In the wet, both of them on slicks.However, no driver will ever compare to Senna.
Firstly, I think it's important to note that most adults can read more then one word every three seconds. Watching your video was one of the most pointlessly tedious experiences of my life.
And so what if Hill lacks racecraft? Schumacher started 16th, won the race by 20 seconds, and kept his head inbetween. That strikes me as a pretty good record. Some deconstruction.
Simply, and perhaps sadly, we'll never be able to directly compare Schumacher with the likes of Senna et al. There will always be obvious reasons why drivers won specific races other than their exceptional levels of talent (ie. Hill's clumsiness over the couple of laps you focus on), but you're surely a fool if you think Schumacher is anything but an exceptionally talented driver.
And so what if Hill lacks racecraft? Schumacher started 16th, won the race by 20 seconds, and kept his head inbetween. That strikes me as a pretty good record. Some deconstruction.
Simply, and perhaps sadly, we'll never be able to directly compare Schumacher with the likes of Senna et al. There will always be obvious reasons why drivers won specific races other than their exceptional levels of talent (ie. Hill's clumsiness over the couple of laps you focus on), but you're surely a fool if you think Schumacher is anything but an exceptionally talented driver.
Derek Smith said:
mattikake said:
I'm going to start putting together some vids on this subject. It's about time!
Belgium 1995. Sio many Schumi fans use this as a demo to point out how great he was. Nah. All this race proves is what a wet rsed fanny Hill was when it came to overtaking, especially in the wet.
Senna, Mansell, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Montoya etc. would've eaten Schumi at the first attempt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvAL7nnIF0
Er, discuss.
Which Prost was that? Was that the Prost who was lapped by Hill in an identical car in a very wet Donnington?Belgium 1995. Sio many Schumi fans use this as a demo to point out how great he was. Nah. All this race proves is what a wet rsed fanny Hill was when it came to overtaking, especially in the wet.
Senna, Mansell, Prost, Alonso, Hamilton, Montoya etc. would've eaten Schumi at the first attempt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idvAL7nnIF0
Er, discuss.
And I assume that was the Hill who managed to stay on track when challenging MS for the title and had to be rammed off the circuit. Some fanny.
If that is the basis of your argument against MS then I'm afraid you haven't convinced this reader.
...and the Prost at Donington who made 7 pitstops to Hill's made 3 IIRC?
...and what's the Autralia '94 incident got to do with the price of fish (I assume)? :s
You advertise youself as a Hill fan. Not wise infront of me, someone who eats pussy, but does not respect pussy.
RT106 said:
Firstly, I think it's important to note that most adults can read more then one word every three seconds. Watching your video was one of the most pointlessly tedious experiences of my life.
Yeah I guess, but I have to cater for the Schumi fans you know! Most of them are about 12yo aren't they? RT106 said:
but you're surely a fool if you think Schumacher is anything but an exceptionally talented driver.
I didn't say he wasn't. If you did read it all, then you'll see I said he did good. But he is not a great as many claim, and many use this as an example. I merely deconstruct such claims.So no worthy comebacks so far. I think this is a measure of success!
RT106 said:
And so what if Hill lacks racecraft? Schumacher started 16th, won the race by 20 seconds, and kept his head inbetween. That strikes me as a pretty good record. Some deconstruction.
I deconstuct the moment, not the entire race.btw, I have already looked at this entire race, and in a nutshell went like this:-
16th to 1st.
He gained places due to Alesi, Hakkinen and Coulthard retiring. Herbert spinning and taking out Blundell in the process. He passed Berger in the pits. Hill had to make the wrong tyre choice, twice and have a 10sec penalty. Also had rain and saftey car assistance, on a track easy to pass on, against feeble opposition (IMO)...
So I make that 9 actual overtakes. Not bad, but I've seen much better dozens of times from Mansell, Prost, Watson, Rosberg, Senna, Lauda, Arnoux, Fangio, Clark, Barrichello, Piquet, just to real off a few...
btw, in that race Brundle also went from 13th to 3rd and Frentzen 10th to 4th, which shows what a mix-up this race was.
Believe me, it takes a certain level of ignorance to rate Schumi.
mattikake said:
RT106 said:
Firstly, I think it's important to note that most adults can read more then one word every three seconds. Watching your video was one of the most pointlessly tedious experiences of my life.
Yeah I guess, but I have to cater for the Schumi fans you know! Most of them are about 12yo aren't they? RT106 said:
but you're surely a fool if you think Schumacher is anything but an exceptionally talented driver.
I didn't say he wasn't. If you did read it all, then you'll see I said he did good. But he is not a great as many claim, and many use this as an example. I merely deconstruct such claims.So no worthy comebacks so far. I think this is a measure of success!
It seems the only argument you are putting forward is that shumi only won because there was no competition.
Lol! He couldn't beat his team mates without team orders. Couldn't beat Hill without barging him off the track, couldn't overtake without barging wheels most of the time, was beaten by Massa several times in 2006 and needed Herbert's telemetary traces to be faster than him.
Most of Schumacher's great wins were Ross Brawn wins imho.
So no worthy comebacks so far. I think this is a measure of success!He could only beat the competition at the time.
It seems the only argument you are putting forward is that shumi only won because there was no competition.
Most of Schumacher's great wins were Ross Brawn wins imho.
Holst said:
mattikake said:
RT106 said:
Firstly, I think it's important to note that most adults can read more then one word every three seconds. Watching your video was one of the most pointlessly tedious experiences of my life.
Yeah I guess, but I have to cater for the Schumi fans you know! Most of them are about 12yo aren't they? RT106 said:
but you're surely a fool if you think Schumacher is anything but an exceptionally talented driver.
I didn't say he wasn't. If you did read it all, then you'll see I said he did good. But he is not a great as many claim, and many use this as an example. I merely deconstruct such claims.So no worthy comebacks so far. I think this is a measure of success!
It seems the only argument you are putting forward is that shumi only won because there was no competition.
Having watched most of your critique of Hill and Shumacher's driving, there are a few things that I think need to be mentioned.
The 'lack of throttle control' that you mention more than once is simply slight power oversteer in slow corners. This is quite common in the wet, particularly when pushing the car in the way Hill was at the time. Ideally it should be minimised but he controls the car well and I don't personally consider it an issue at all. If he lacked throttle control, he would simply not stay on a wet track.
Hill is obviously faster in Eau Rouge as you say, by virtue of the wet tyres, but bear in mind that this is a high speed corner, you can't just jump to the conclusion that Hill should then be faster in all corners. We don't know what the setups were like on either car, neither do we know what the track surface is like at each corner. The track surface will often have a different level of grip at different corners, the grip can also vary considerably across the width of the track.
Turning into Les Combes you say "Just brake later. Easy", but again, we don't know what Hill's car was handling like, the brake bias may have been such that it would have been difficult for him, not only that, if he brakes too late with Schumacher on the outside he would understeer into him. Hill does actually outbrake Schumacher but Schumacher stays on the outside which gives him the inside for the next turn. This corner is much lower speed than Eau Rouge so there is a lot less downforce, it may also be a lot drier, there is no reason to conclude Hill has much more grip than Schumacher here.
There was not a lack of aggression either, Schumacher, quite within his rights, ran to the outside of the track, Hill backed off to avoid having to use some grass which in the wet would be unwise.
The 'pointless weaving' of Hill performs several functions, firstly it is a part of pressurising the driver in front, forcing them to check both mirrors and drawing their attention. Schumacher probably missed his braking point as a result of this. Secondly, in the marginal conditions that you describe, Hill may well have had to cool his tyres, this is done by moving off the dry line. Weaving also allows a driver to get a view of the track ahead not possible when tucked behind another car's rear wing.
Schumacher's defence is clearly more complex than just driving in the middle of the track, he knows what he's doing, his vehicle placement is calculated.
Regarding Hill "mis-timing" his corner exits, he may have intended to end up under Schumacher's rear wing each time, either to get a tow and/or to apply more pressure. He could have used a slingshot as you say but Schumacher may have seen that coming and simply closed the door.
I think it was good racing from both drivers considering the conditions, particularly good from Schumacher since he was on dry tyres.
I'm not actually a great Schumacher fan, nor Hill really, but I know a good driver when I see one.
The 'lack of throttle control' that you mention more than once is simply slight power oversteer in slow corners. This is quite common in the wet, particularly when pushing the car in the way Hill was at the time. Ideally it should be minimised but he controls the car well and I don't personally consider it an issue at all. If he lacked throttle control, he would simply not stay on a wet track.
Hill is obviously faster in Eau Rouge as you say, by virtue of the wet tyres, but bear in mind that this is a high speed corner, you can't just jump to the conclusion that Hill should then be faster in all corners. We don't know what the setups were like on either car, neither do we know what the track surface is like at each corner. The track surface will often have a different level of grip at different corners, the grip can also vary considerably across the width of the track.
Turning into Les Combes you say "Just brake later. Easy", but again, we don't know what Hill's car was handling like, the brake bias may have been such that it would have been difficult for him, not only that, if he brakes too late with Schumacher on the outside he would understeer into him. Hill does actually outbrake Schumacher but Schumacher stays on the outside which gives him the inside for the next turn. This corner is much lower speed than Eau Rouge so there is a lot less downforce, it may also be a lot drier, there is no reason to conclude Hill has much more grip than Schumacher here.
There was not a lack of aggression either, Schumacher, quite within his rights, ran to the outside of the track, Hill backed off to avoid having to use some grass which in the wet would be unwise.
The 'pointless weaving' of Hill performs several functions, firstly it is a part of pressurising the driver in front, forcing them to check both mirrors and drawing their attention. Schumacher probably missed his braking point as a result of this. Secondly, in the marginal conditions that you describe, Hill may well have had to cool his tyres, this is done by moving off the dry line. Weaving also allows a driver to get a view of the track ahead not possible when tucked behind another car's rear wing.
Schumacher's defence is clearly more complex than just driving in the middle of the track, he knows what he's doing, his vehicle placement is calculated.
Regarding Hill "mis-timing" his corner exits, he may have intended to end up under Schumacher's rear wing each time, either to get a tow and/or to apply more pressure. He could have used a slingshot as you say but Schumacher may have seen that coming and simply closed the door.
I think it was good racing from both drivers considering the conditions, particularly good from Schumacher since he was on dry tyres.
I'm not actually a great Schumacher fan, nor Hill really, but I know a good driver when I see one.
mattikake said:
The Prost who was the ultimate professional and always competitive regardless of car, teammate, situation, circuit... and weather. It wasn't fully wet either, as Prost only protested the extreme conditions, not the marginal conditions.
...and the Prost at Donington who made 7 pitstops to Hill's made 3 IIRC?
...and what's the Autralia '94 incident got to do with the price of fish (I assume)? :s
You advertise youself as a Hill fan. Not wise infront of me, someone who eats pussy, but does not respect pussy.
Hmm. Not too sure about Prost being the ultimate professional. He gave up on Donington, that's not my idea of a pro. I felt at the time that the only reason he kept making pitstops was to give himself an excuse for wandering about at the back of the field despite being in a competative car....and the Prost at Donington who made 7 pitstops to Hill's made 3 IIRC?
...and what's the Autralia '94 incident got to do with the price of fish (I assume)? :s
You advertise youself as a Hill fan. Not wise infront of me, someone who eats pussy, but does not respect pussy.
I'm not a particular Hill fan. I didn't find his driving particularly exciting. What impressed me about him was the way he took over after Senna. The pressure must have been tremendous yet after a couple of duff races he was up there battling. And he seems like a very pleasant chap with very little of the professional PR glaze that most had. He reminded of a less sophisticated Elio de Angelis.
What you do with cats is your business but rating Prost! There never seemed to be any fire in him. Driving by numbers. He had more natural skill than, say, Mansell but I can remember more drives by the Brit than the French chap's.
And of the others you pick: are you serious about Montoya? And Mansell? And as for Hamilton, he's still learning the ropes and, good as he is, he cannot compare to MS in a Ferrari at their joint peak. And let's face it, Alonso was beaten by LH in an identical car in 2007 when he was new to a lot of circuits so that would let him out as well.
I think it is a great shame that we never saw Senna and MS against one another when both were on fire, but you could say that of many drivers. But why pick Montoya of all drivers when there's Clark, Andretti, Carlos Reut, Rindt and so many others. Montoya? Why not suggest Derek Warwick or Berger?
I was a never a big fan of the bloke but if you are claiming that MS is anything other than one of the greats then you are missing something. Sorry to be the one to tell you this.
He did not get that many wins, or have such a great team around him by luck, people (Ross Brawn etc) saw the talent. Both in the car and in the team and as a group of people they exploited the opportunity to the full. I never liked some of the underhand tactics and I am sure that in the Benetton days there was an element of 'pushing the envelope' when it came to the electronics but his ability to get it right was much better than anyone else of his generation.
D (and beleive me when I say I am not a fan, I was always rooting for Hill, Mikka, Alonso etc..).
He did not get that many wins, or have such a great team around him by luck, people (Ross Brawn etc) saw the talent. Both in the car and in the team and as a group of people they exploited the opportunity to the full. I never liked some of the underhand tactics and I am sure that in the Benetton days there was an element of 'pushing the envelope' when it came to the electronics but his ability to get it right was much better than anyone else of his generation.
D (and beleive me when I say I am not a fan, I was always rooting for Hill, Mikka, Alonso etc..).
Forums | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff