The Michael Schumacher Debate Thread

[37chevy]

entropy said:

Regardless of how much space Webber gave or how close to pit wall Vettel got it's still not on, is it?

really? so its ok for Schumacher to do it to barichello because barichello should have known what Schumacher was like, but its not on that webber did it to vettel? huh...

[angrymoby]

entropy said:

Regardless of how much space Webber gave or how close to pit wall Vettel got it's still not on, is it?

you said 'exact same' not me ...Webber gave at least an extra half a car's width in comparison & doesn't look like their wheels interlocked at any point (unlike Hungary)

car width & a half is just about up to the line & acceptable to me ...interlocking wheels & inches to me is so far over the line it's in the tundra

so not exactly the same, hence no one batted an eyelid (apart from Seb)

[entropy]

37chevy said:

entropy said:

Regardless of how much space Webber gave or how close to pit wall Vettel got it's still not on, is it?

really? so its ok for Schumacher to do it to barichello because barichello should have known what Schumacher was like, but its not on that webber did it to vettel? huh...

I said Barrichello didn't have much to complain about.

Alonso recently said the toughest guy to overtake was Schumi.

Schumi is veering to the right before Rubens makes the overtake so even in that moment Rubens should be thinking that by committing he's going to to have quite a ride. Why not commit to the outside? Or even a cut-back/crossover pass at the first corner?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AzpYilkKrA

Remember Perez squeezing Ocon at Spa? Some people thought Ocon was being dumb for trying a move that wasn't really on with the door closing. https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

angrymoby said:

you said 'exact same' not me ...Webber gave at least an extra half a car's width

You're being too generous.

[angrymoby]

entropy said:

You're being too generous.

am i?

Edited by angrymoby on Tuesday 4th September 08:50

[entropy]

angrymoby said:

am i?

[mattikake]

angrymoby said:

entropy said:

You're being too generous.

am i?

Edited by angrymoby on Tuesday 4th September 08:50

Point made, proven and won. End.

I forgot the biggest and most hated legacy of Schumacher, was the legions of "fans" that slimed their out of the festering woodwork...It's akin for football fans - all fandom, little brains, zero knowledge. It is what it is though.

[TobyTR]

whatxd said:

LDN said:

I agree 100%. Add to that; demand for / de facto number one status - and also, unlimited testing. Schuey complained about the lack of testing upon his return to F1... relentless testing first time around; and having a car, tyres, setup built around him is what made for the dominant package at the time. With an even playing field; he was at sea. I remember his return being hailed as the second coming; and talk of showing the young guns how it's done... this, having already been shown the door by Alonso in his ascendance. The game moved on; the playing field made more even and dirty tactics, perhaps less likely / more frowned upon; he was never going to shine like before.

Lewis Hamilton's PistonHeads PR guy is back with the BS.

Irvine has debunked the whole number 1 and number 2 thing in the contract on numerous occassions. Yet still you repeat it as gospel.

Schumacher's number one status was no different to Hamilton over Bottas yesterday by way of one being clearly in a different league to the other so the team will prioritise one over the other.

Bottas is nowhere near as good as Hamilton and has absolutely no hope of winning the championship. None whatsoever, regardless of whether the car is similar to the rest of the field or 2 seconds a lap faster.

As a result, Bottas is now the number 2 driver by default and he'll do as he's told, like he did yesterday when he was told to "hold kimi up"

The situation at Ferrari was really no different other than a handful of occasions.

This.

People that underrate Schumacher need to watch 2000 again. Beat Hakkinen in a fair fight in an epic battle throughout the season.

Regarding his comeback with Mercedes, Mark Hughes wrote an article in 2010 or 2011 stating he was at least a couple of tenths behind the car and no longer had the reactions he once had. Age and a few years away from the sport does that to you

[glazbagun]

entropy said:

mattikake said:

- his wet racing really aint all that. As a percentage of wins and podiums, Hamilton, Mansell (hampered by Senna) were better and Senna was simply miles ahead with a near 80% win rate (actually 60% but that included the '84 Monaco GP and Canada '89 - mechanical failure while leading 3 laps from the end) to Schumachers 40% win rate. And of course, Schumacher won these in almost exclusively the best car anyway. Schumacher also crashed more in the wet than Hamilton and Mansell. With wet racing mastery there is a league of 1 and it consists of Senna. By my rough calculations, Hamilton would still need to win something like about 8 out of 8 more wet races to join Senna, because Hamilton has raced in a lot more wet races.

Would be interesting compiling and evaluating those wet races for differing opinions!

It was, by his own admission, the race of his life and had a weird format. But I'll always remember Hill beating Schumacher in the rain at Suzuka in 94 and bring it up whenever people denigrate the formers peak ability. I re-watched it on a grainy old stream years ago and I think the debate over best wet weather driver will need to be split into the pre/post Bianchi era because there's no way that race would be allowed to run today.

[LDN]

whatxd said:

LDN said:

I agree 100%. Add to that; demand for / de facto number one status - and also, unlimited testing. Schuey complained about the lack of testing upon his return to F1... relentless testing first time around; and having a car, tyres, setup built around him is what made for the dominant package at the time. With an even playing field; he was at sea. I remember his return being hailed as the second coming; and talk of showing the young guns how it's done... this, having already been shown the door by Alonso in his ascendance. The game moved on; the playing field made more even and dirty tactics, perhaps less likely / more frowned upon; he was never going to shine like before.

Lewis Hamilton's PistonHeads PR guy is back with the BS.

Irvine has debunked the whole number 1 and number 2 thing in the contract on numerous occassions. Yet still you repeat it as gospel.

Schumacher's number one status was no different to Hamilton over Bottas yesterday by way of one being clearly in a different league to the other so the team will prioritise one over the other.

Bottas is nowhere near as good as Hamilton and has absolutely no hope of winning the championship. None whatsoever, regardless of whether the car is similar to the rest of the field or 2 seconds a lap faster.

As a result, Bottas is now the number 2 driver by default and he'll do as he's told, like he did yesterday when he was told to "hold kimi up"

The situation at Ferrari was really no different other than a handful of occasions.

you flatter me. I’ve never said Schuey was rubbish... but I’ve said he is overrated. And many many many people agree. So my stance on that is not revolutionary in any way shape or form.

Schuey having number one status is a known paddock fact; and if you think that Hamilton’s number one status is the same as Schuey’s, you don’t know F1. Schuey had a car and team built around him. Fact. Ferrari have never hidden that fact. So what is it that you’re arguing? Schuey has won races by literally having team mates move over for him. Bottas being asked to hold off an attacking rival is not quite the same. But we’ll have to agree to disagree.

[hairyben]

entropy said:

Yet Webber pulled the exact same move on Vettel at the infamous 2013 Malaysian GP yet no-one bats an eyelid because of multi-21. Webber didn't even get a post-race penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HH1MTYLqEk

I don't think Rubens had much to complain about. Afterall he has been in F1 long enough to know Schumi's antics - try to overtake Schumi and you know he'll the squeeze.

l'm not sure it'd make my top 5 of schumachers antics; everyone was all patronising over it like "you rotter schumi, doing that to poor defenseless little ruebens" when what I saw, and without condoning michael, was ruebens jumping in with both feet

[entropy]

glazbagun said:

It was, by his own admission, the race of his life and had a weird format. But I'll always remember Hill beating Schumacher in the rain at Suzuka in 94 and bring it up whenever people denigrate the formers peak ability. I re-watched it on a grainy old stream years ago and I think the debate over best wet weather driver will need to be split into the pre/post Bianchi era because there's no way that race would be allowed to run today.

And then there's the 1995 Belgian GP with Hill on wet tyres couldn't beat Schumi on slicks.

Brazil 2016 wettest race post-Bianchi?

[Dr Z]

entropy said:

Yet Webber pulled the exact same move on Vettel at the infamous 2013 Malaysian GP yet no-one bats an eyelid because of multi-21. Webber didn't even get a post-race penalty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HH1MTYLqEk

I don't think Rubens had much to complain about. Afterall he has been in F1 long enough to know Schumi's antics - try to overtake Schumi and you know he'll the squeeze.

I don't want to speak for others here, but for me it was more about the fact that he had been out of the sport for a considerable time and I naively expected him to have mellowed. Don't get me wrong, I can accept a certain level of hard nosed-ness from a racer and I can certainly rationalise to myself a certain level of ruthlessness from a legendary racer like Michael, but seeing that just made me sad.

[angrymoby]

Dr Z said:

I don't want to speak for others here, but for me it was more about the fact that he had been out of the sport for a considerable time and I naively expected him to have mellowed. Don't get me wrong, I can accept a certain level of hard nosed-ness from a racer and I can certainly rationalise to myself a certain level of ruthlessness from a legendary racer like Michael, but seeing that just made me sad.

it wasn't so much that i thought he'd mellow after his sabbatical ...i just thought he'd give less of a st when not being at the pointy end so much

I mean Webber was known for being a tough competitor, but as we can see ...he gave 'enough' room & that was effectively in a title battle race

[glazbagun]

entropy said:

glazbagun said:

It was, by his own admission, the race of his life and had a weird format. But I'll always remember Hill beating Schumacher in the rain at Suzuka in 94 and bring it up whenever people denigrate the formers peak ability. I re-watched it on a grainy old stream years ago and I think the debate over best wet weather driver will need to be split into the pre/post Bianchi era because there's no way that race would be allowed to run today.

And then there's the 1995 Belgian GP with Hill on wet tyres couldn't beat Schumi on slicks.

Brazil 2016 wettest race post-Bianchi?

Hills driving pretty much fell to pieces in 95, I remember him making an impossible lunge on Schumacher at Silverstone. It was probably that season that sealed his fate for Williams.

The 94 race is on youtube. No Murray Walker, but we have a young Coulthard. The safety car is a Honda Prelude!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uxL7zi0MA8

[chunder27]

To be honest

If anyone says Rubens had nothing to worry about at Estoril that year. They really know absolutely nothing about decency, fairness, respect for fellow men or even motor racing. So you might aswell not exist on here.

[whatxd]

LDN said:

Schuey has won races by literally having team mates move over for him. Bottas being asked to hold off an attacking rival is not quite the same. But we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Races? Is it plural now?

I only remember one occasion in Formula 1 where Schumacher's team mate "literally" moved over for him. It has been repeated many times since and will continue to be repeated for many years to come.

However, during his time at Ferrari, Schumacher "literally" moved over so his team mate could win on two occasions in 99 and 02. This of course is not repeated anywhere near as often as Austria 02. How odd.

So tell me, how many races did Schumacher win because his team mates moved over for him, minus the two where he moved over to allow his team mate to win, and what is his net gain at the end of it all? You'll probably find the results don't match your narrative quite as much as you'd like.

[chunder27]

So then, explain to all of us why Rubens car broke down so many times when Michaels did not? Might it be because he was testing new parts, or development bits? Were the cars always equal? Was Rubens really just very unlucky? Surely it was in their interest for him to finish at least to score cons points? Yet at times his cars reliability record was appalling. I find it hard to believe that was LL down to bad luck.

Was he that mechanically unsympathetic? Irvine was sent out numerous times as sacrificial lamb in qualifying to test conditions etc.

The team, car, engines, tyres, the entire operation was designed around him winning, it will never happen again. But that, and the merciless attitude to any rival (actually other than Mika who he respected enormously) is why people tend to discredit him somewhat in terms of his achievements.

He is a great yes, but for a lot of fans, somewhat down the list compared to some others before and since.

[whatxd]

chunder27 the conspiracy theorist! Bad luck happens in motorsport, as MS himself found when, despite already being over the hill, he was closing in on an eighth title and the luck he'd had in the past abandoned him. It was Alonso's bad luck that put him in that situation in the first place.

The general consensus at the time was that any new parts, anything that they only had time to put on one car, it would go to Schumacher's car first. You just said yourself the team was built around him.

So, in this alternate reality you've just conjured, was Barichello only testing the parts Ferrari thought were a bit crap? Was Barichello just a glorified test driver, working weekends? Or are you suggesting that Ferrari deliberately held Barichello back by sabotaging his car? It's difficult to tell and you leave a lot open to interpretation, please tell us more!

I don't think anybody would deny that Schumacher was Ferrari's main man, but to suggest that Schumacher was given multiple wins from team mates moving over is ridiculous. To suggest that Ferrari would deliberately hold Barichello back by making him test experiment parts or sabotage his car is even more ridiculous, especially when you consider that Schumacher was by far the faster and more consistent driver in the first place.

[Derek Smith]

whatxd said:

chunder27 the conspiracy theorist! Bad luck happens in motorsport, as MS himself found when, despite already being over the hill, he was closing in on an eighth title and the luck he'd had in the past abandoned him. It was Alonso's bad luck that put him in that situation in the first place.

The general consensus at the time was that any new parts, anything that they only had time to put on one car, it would go to Schumacher's car first. You just said yourself the team was built around him.

So, in this alternate reality you've just conjured, was Barichello only testing the parts Ferrari thought were a bit crap? Was Barichello just a glorified test driver, working weekends? Or are you suggesting that Ferrari deliberately held Barichello back by sabotaging his car? It's difficult to tell and you leave a lot open to interpretation, please tell us more!

I don't think anybody would deny that Schumacher was Ferrari's main man, but to suggest that Schumacher was given multiple wins from team mates moving over is ridiculous. To suggest that Ferrari would deliberately hold Barichello back by making him test experiment parts or sabotage his car is even more ridiculous, especially when you consider that Schumacher was by far the faster and more consistent driver in the first place.

Odd, then, that after Johnny Herbert outqualified Schumacher, gaining pole, he was not allowed access to Schumacher's data but Schumacher was allowed full access to his.

I too think that no one would deny that Schumacher was #1 at Ferrari. I would assume that no one would deny that the prime function for the #2 was to support the #1. Moving over started well before the race weekend. During the races, the #2's race strategy would be sacrificed for Schumacher. That is hardly infrequent nowadays.

He was a great driver, arguably the greatest in F1. There's no doubt in my mind that the Ferrari team in the Schumacher years was the best team set up I've ever seen in the 50+ years I've been following the sport. Part of the team's success was built on them having just the one driver. Everything else was sacrificed to him. To argue otherwise is not doing Schumacher any favours.

[LDN]

whatxd said:

LDN said:

Schuey has won races by literally having team mates move over for him. Bottas being asked to hold off an attacking rival is not quite the same. But we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Races? Is it plural now?

I only remember one occasion in Formula 1 where Schumacher's team mate "literally" moved over for him. It has been repeated many times since and will continue to be repeated for many years to come.

However, during his time at Ferrari, Schumacher "literally" moved over so his team mate could win on two occasions in 99 and 02. This of course is not repeated anywhere near as often as Austria 02. How odd.

So tell me, how many races did Schumacher win because his team mates moved over for him, minus the two where he moved over to allow his team mate to win, and what is his net gain at the end of it all? You'll probably find the results don't match your narrative quite as much as you'd like.

Taking out the word ‘win’ or ‘won’; the intention of my point is clear as day. And with that in mind; Austria 2001 and Austria 2002 spring to mind; and that’s without any digging. On both occasions; a full blown, unashamed “move over for Michael”. In fact the 2002 incident was so controversial; in the extremity of just how unsportsman like it really was; that it is what sparked the debate on team orders. Add to that, the horrid tactics he’d often employ, he’s a flawed genius.

I’ve never met anyone that denied Schueys obvious skill; he moved the game on with regard fitness and all round dedication. But; is he overrated? Yes, he really is. As well, the game has moved on; as most sports do; and modern drivers have stepped things up to another level. Alonso already showed that against MS!