Lewis Hamilton Vs Michael Schumacher - Who Is Better?
Discussion
angrymoby said:
Bo_apex said:
And Webber qualified ahead of both Rosberg and Hamilton.
I must have missed the years where Webber was in a McL or a Merc?Bo_apex said:
Yes he was old, and way past his prime
so was '96 prime era Schumacher or not? ...as i seem to remember him binning it there then, lap 1 wasn't it?Yes Schumacher had a colouful challenge in '96 in that Barnard total donkey, and hauled it around slightly better at Barcelona
paulguitar said:
HustleRussell said:
Post-comeback Schumacher did not disgrace himself but he was not the driver I remembered and I think others will agree. He didn't seem to have the outright pace he once had, and while he was still a canny driver on Sundays he also had a few accidents which looked uncharacteristically 'accidental' and betrayed the notion that his feel and judgment were still pin sharp.
I don't think there is much doubt he had declined, as well as finally facing a level playing field in his own team.One thing that had not changed was his willingness to sometimes drive like an absolute nutter. The thing I most clearly remember from his comeback years was this:
Or was it Rosberg
Edited by Bo_apex on Wednesday 23 October 17:37
HustleRussell said:
Post-comeback Schumacher did not disgrace himself but he was not the driver I remembered and I think others will agree. He didn't seem to have the outright pace he once had, and while he was still a canny driver on Sundays he also had a few accidents which looked uncharacteristically 'accidental' and betrayed the notion that his feel and judgment were still pin sharp.
A fair appraisalSmollet said:
He admitted a year later he did it to take Prost out of the race to the title. It was deliberate and nothing to do with being given the wrong side of the grid.
no, it was for '89 (either whole season of niggling & politicking or the 'other' Suzuka incident- take your choice )the non grid move & allowing of the chicane to be used, just fanned those flames
paulguitar said:
I don't think there is much doubt he had declined, as well as finally facing a level playing field in his own team.
One thing that had not changed was his willingness to sometimes drive like an absolute nutter. The thing I most clearly remember from his comeback years was this:
like pretty much all his 'stunts' ...absolutely no needOne thing that had not changed was his willingness to sometimes drive like an absolute nutter. The thing I most clearly remember from his comeback years was this:
angrymoby said:
like pretty much all his 'stunts' ...absolutely no need
Yes; one too many of such incidents, tarnish his record. As does the extreme bias and obscure playing field he enjoyed for so so long. His career pre F1 was nothing special either. Hamilton on the other hand...He’s not on Hamilton’s level.
Smollet said:
NewUsername said:
I’m not sure it was that speed and Senna did it out of a sense of injustice because of the grid slot being moved to the dirty side.... it wasn’t done on such simple terms as Schumacher, I’m not saying it’s right but it’s deffo not the same
He admitted a year later he did it to take Prost out of the race to the title. It was deliberate and nothing to do with being given the wrong side of the grid. The pole slot had been moved from the previous three years in 1990 and Senna complained it was Balestre favouring Alain and said that if he lost ground at the start due to that then he’d hit Prost as he Prost had an unfair advantage of the clean side of the track from second place.
It’s very very well documented that he lobbied the officials and managed to get them to agree the change of side of Pole only for Balestre to overrule that after qualifying ( to favour Prost )
If you think it was nothing to do with the grid position you’re a bit mad. Go watch the film for a start!
NewUsername said:
Smollet said:
NewUsername said:
I’m not sure it was that speed and Senna did it out of a sense of injustice because of the grid slot being moved to the dirty side.... it wasn’t done on such simple terms as Schumacher, I’m not saying it’s right but it’s deffo not the same
He admitted a year later he did it to take Prost out of the race to the title. It was deliberate and nothing to do with being given the wrong side of the grid. The pole slot had been moved from the previous three years in 1990 and Senna complained it was Balestre favouring Alain and said that if he lost ground at the start due to that then he’d hit Prost as he Prost had an unfair advantage of the clean side of the track from second place.
It’s very very well documented that he lobbied the officials and managed to get them to agree the change of side of Pole only for Balestre to overrule that after qualifying ( to favour Prost )
If you think it was nothing to do with the grid position you’re a bit mad. Go watch the film for a start!
The spot was the same as the previous 3 years.
Stop getting your facts from a Senna biased movie. Senna was a very manipulative driver and blamed everything he could on others if he wasn't getting his own way.
If you mind to check for yourself and tell us on what side the pole man started the race in 88, 89 and 90:
1988:
https://youtu.be/koyEcfaw500
1989:
https://youtu.be/0eTUM7Rug2g
1990:
https://youtu.be/hnwZfq27fhU
Enjoy.
Edited by E34-3.2 on Wednesday 23 October 22:04
NewUsername said:
TobyTR said:
If Mansell was showing signs of his prime, then he would've been re-signed by a team to a full-time F1 drive in 1995. He wasn't, because he was past it. SHow us another 43-year-old F1 driver that achieved the same or better as Schumacher after over three years out...
He was....Mclaren lolTobyTR said:
Why do some clowns on here still think F1 drivers are operating the same in their 40s as in their prime? Zero common sense.
Because the small sample of modern F1 drivers who've done it suggests its possible to be competitive.......the large sample of Indy suggests its totally possibleWhy do some clowns ignore this in their blind belief Shumacher was god............he was either immensely fit and redefined driver condition in which case Age didn't really matter and he got hammered by NR for 3 years or he succumbed to age and wasn't as good as Nigel Mansell at 41......
Its one or the other really
You are actually thick if you still refuse to accept F1 drivers don't decline with age. There is a world of difference between being somewhat competitive and being the same as in your prime years! And yes, Michael didn't exactly do a stellar job with his comeback, but wasn't exactly languishing at the back of the pack either.
E34-3.2 said:
You are completely wrong...
The spot was the same as the previous 3 years.
Stop getting your facts from a Senna biased movie. Senna was a very manipulative driver and blamed everything he could on others if he wasn't getting his own way.
If you mind to check for yourself and tell us on what side the pole man started the race in 88, 89 and 90:
1988:
https://youtu.be/koyEcfaw500
1989:
https://youtu.be/0eTUM7Rug2g
1990:
https://youtu.be/hnwZfq27fhU
Enjoy.
Senna was right though ...from 1991 till today it's been on the racing lineThe spot was the same as the previous 3 years.
Stop getting your facts from a Senna biased movie. Senna was a very manipulative driver and blamed everything he could on others if he wasn't getting his own way.
If you mind to check for yourself and tell us on what side the pole man started the race in 88, 89 and 90:
1988:
https://youtu.be/koyEcfaw500
1989:
https://youtu.be/0eTUM7Rug2g
1990:
https://youtu.be/hnwZfq27fhU
Enjoy.
Edited by E34-3.2 on Wednesday 23 October 22:04
angrymoby said:
Senna was right though ...from 1991 till today it's been on the racing line
Senna tried to bypass Balestre and change the pole spot without the green light from the FIA president. Honda and Senna were so arrogant and though they could make their own rules at Home. The proof is that the pole spot was change earlier in the year in Portugal after a demand properly formulated. Really don't understand how people can make up stories about the pole spot changed from previous years where it was always at the same place.
I have to say that the movie Senna was so biased on one side that people who weren't into f1 at the time can easily be manipulated.
NewUsername said:
You couldn’t be more wrong
The pole slot had been moved from the previous three years in 1990 and Senna complained it was Balestre favouring Alain and said that if he lost ground at the start due to that then he’d hit Prost as he Prost had an unfair advantage of the clean side of the track from second place.
It’s very very well documented that he lobbied the officials and managed to get them to agree the change of side of Pole only for Balestre to overrule that after qualifying ( to favour Prost )
If you think it was nothing to do with the grid position you’re a bit mad. Go watch the film for a start!
Seriously, seriously, seriously, do NOT quote that film when discussing Senna, especially when debating with race fans because you’ll end up looking foolish. The film is 90% fiction. Read the books instead, there’s no end of them, written by the racing commentators of the time, rather than a film which is a fictitious account produced by a fan boi. The pole slot had been moved from the previous three years in 1990 and Senna complained it was Balestre favouring Alain and said that if he lost ground at the start due to that then he’d hit Prost as he Prost had an unfair advantage of the clean side of the track from second place.
It’s very very well documented that he lobbied the officials and managed to get them to agree the change of side of Pole only for Balestre to overrule that after qualifying ( to favour Prost )
If you think it was nothing to do with the grid position you’re a bit mad. Go watch the film for a start!
E34-3.2 said:
Senna tried to bypass Balestre and change the pole spot without the green light from the FIA president. Honda and Senna were so arrogant and though they could make their own rules at Home. The proof is that the pole spot was change earlier in the year in Portugal after a demand properly formulated.
Really don't understand how people can make up stories about the pole spot changed from previous years where it was always at the same place.
I have to say that the movie Senna was so biased on one side that people who weren't into f1 at the time can easily be manipulated.
It's pretty obvious that the pole needed to be moved (as shown by your vids) ...FISA should have done it themselves without prompting from Berger & SennaReally don't understand how people can make up stories about the pole spot changed from previous years where it was always at the same place.
I have to say that the movie Senna was so biased on one side that people who weren't into f1 at the time can easily be manipulated.
I have no idea who Senna & Berger lobbied, I doubt Senna spoke to Balestre directly- as they absolutely loathed each other ...but there were assurances to both Senna & Berger that it would be moved
to renege that decision AFTER Senna had already bagged pole is a
s trick ...& it's no surprise Senna did what he didyears ago i did read somewhere that Balestre also admitted to having acted to benefit Prost in '89 - i'd need to fact check that tho'
angrymoby said:
It's pretty obvious that the pole needed to be moved (as shown by your vids) ...FISA should have done it themselves without prompting from Berger & Senna
I have no idea who Senna & Berger lobbied, I doubt Senna spoke to Balestre directly- as they absolutely loathed each other ...but there were assurances to both Senna & Berger that it would be moved
to renege that decision AFTER Senna had already bagged pole is as trick ...& it's no surprise Senna did what he did
years ago i did read somewhere that Balestre also admitted to having acted to benefit Prost in '89 - i'd need to fact check that tho'
Whether the stewards make the right decision or not about moving pole, doesn't justify Senna intentionally driving into another car at over 100mph. Never mind the obvious danger, Prost wasn't even the one who denied Senna's request! Senna crashed to secure the championship.I have no idea who Senna & Berger lobbied, I doubt Senna spoke to Balestre directly- as they absolutely loathed each other ...but there were assurances to both Senna & Berger that it would be moved
to renege that decision AFTER Senna had already bagged pole is a
s trick ...& it's no surprise Senna did what he didyears ago i did read somewhere that Balestre also admitted to having acted to benefit Prost in '89 - i'd need to fact check that tho'
I'd also like to see any quotes from Balestre that his decisions in '89 were to support Prost. It seems unlikely because, firstly, Prost didn't need the help. He could have finished second behind Senna in Japan, in fact could have finished 4th and still won the championship there and then. And of all the drivers on the grid, Prost the Professor was the one who had shown he'd know this better than anyone else. His task in Oz, had Senna kept the Japan win after the collision, would have been no more difficult.
Secondly, the only supporting evidence I've seen why Balestre would support Prost is because they're both French. If that's it, then it's an assumption based on someone seeing nationalistic allegiance and ignoring everything else about the relationships between three men who knew eachother well. I know Prost is on record saying he didn't get on with Balestre.
I do agree that Balestre was being manipulative, because he always was. However, I don't think he was pro- Prost, I think he was anti- Senna, and had it been, say, Mansell and Senna fighting for the championship in Japan with the same collision, the decision would have been the same.
Balestre had other opportunities to make Prost a champion earlier but didn't take them, so I don't see why he'd start in 1989. On the other hand, Senna was getting in trouble with authority all the time, even before F1 he felt the establishment was agains him, and I can easily see Balestre making harsh decisions against him in a hamfisted attempt to get him to toe the line.
EDIT: Actually maybe I'm not quite right about finishing 4th, because of the 11 races count rule. looks like he would have needed 2nd to drop a 3rd, leaving him with the task of getting 1 point in Oz to secure the title. I thought they dropped that rule after 1988 but apparently it was some years later.
EDIT again: And then, actually, he wouldn't have needed one point in Oz, he'd have needed to win so he could drop a 2nd and increase his points. Which means if Senna won both, he'd secure the championship and Prost couldn't stop him.
OK, that does change my opinion quite a bit.
Edited by kiseca on Thursday 24th October 10:02
vdn said:
Yes; one too many of such incidents, tarnish his record. As does the extreme bias and obscure playing field he enjoyed for so so long. His career pre F1 was nothing special either. Hamilton on the other hand...
He’s not on Hamilton’s level.
Interesting way you've compared careers there. Did Schumacher enjoy the same level of support and security that Hamilton did pre-F1 for example?He’s not on Hamilton’s level.
kiseca said:
angrymoby said:
It's pretty obvious that the pole needed to be moved (as shown by your vids) ...FISA should have done it themselves without prompting from Berger & Senna
I have no idea who Senna & Berger lobbied, I doubt Senna spoke to Balestre directly- as they absolutely loathed each other ...but there were assurances to both Senna & Berger that it would be moved
to renege that decision AFTER Senna had already bagged pole is as trick ...& it's no surprise Senna did what he did
years ago i did read somewhere that Balestre also admitted to having acted to benefit Prost in '89 - i'd need to fact check that tho'
Whether the stewards make the right decision or not about moving pole, doesn't justify Senna intentionally driving into another car at over 100mph. Never mind the obvious danger, Prost wasn't even the one who denied Senna's request! Senna crashed to secure the championship.I have no idea who Senna & Berger lobbied, I doubt Senna spoke to Balestre directly- as they absolutely loathed each other ...but there were assurances to both Senna & Berger that it would be moved
to renege that decision AFTER Senna had already bagged pole is a
s trick ...& it's no surprise Senna did what he didyears ago i did read somewhere that Balestre also admitted to having acted to benefit Prost in '89 - i'd need to fact check that tho'
I'd also like to see any quotes from Balestre that his decisions in '89 were to support Prost. It seems unlikely because, firstly, Prost didn't need the help. He could have finished second behind Senna in Japan, in fact could have finished 4th and still won the championship there and then. And of all the drivers on the grid, Prost the Professor was the one who had shown he'd know this better than anyone else. His task in Oz, had Senna kept the Japan win after the collision, would have been no more difficult.
Secondly, the only supporting evidence I've seen why Balestre would support Prost is because they're both French. If that's it, then it's an assumption based on someone seeing nationalistic allegiance and ignoring everything else about the relationships between three men who knew eachother well. I know Prost is on record saying he didn't get on with Balestre.
I do agree that Balestre was being manipulative, because he always was. However, I don't think he was pro- Prost, I think he was anti- Senna, and had it been, say, Mansell and Senna fighting for the championship in Japan with the same collision, the decision would have been the same.
Balestre had other opportunities to make Prost a champion earlier but didn't take them, so I don't see why he'd start in 1989. On the other hand, Senna was getting in trouble with authority all the time, even before F1 he felt the establishment was agains him, and I can easily see Balestre making harsh decisions against him in a hamfisted attempt to get him to toe the line.
EDIT: Actually maybe I'm not quite right about finishing 4th, because of the 11 races count rule. looks like he would have needed 2nd to drop a 3rd, leaving him with the task of getting 1 point in Oz to secure the title. I thought they dropped that rule after 1988 but apparently it was some years later.
EDIT again: And then, actually, he wouldn't have needed one point in Oz, he'd have needed to win so he could drop a 2nd and increase his points. Which means if Senna won both, he'd secure the championship and Prost couldn't stop him.
OK, that does change my opinion quite a bit.
Edited by kiseca on Thursday 24th October 10:02
The worst for Balestre was when Prost moved to Ferrari, Enzo and Balestre couldn't stand each others anymore (before Enzo died in 88) despite fighting together during the FISA-FOCA war. Balestre made Ferrari life very difficult (I'll try to find the French article about it) Even if Enzo wasn't there anymore.
I don't think that Balestre was liked by anyone, especially team owners. He is responsible for the end of Group B. Jean Totd was another one of his enemies....
Edited by E34-3.2 on Thursday 24th October 11:10
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff