Problem is Mercedes hired todays' Schumacher to race. If they wanted to use his champion magnitude alone, they'd have him only appear in car ads on TV and put someone faster in the race car. The saying in F1 goes that you're only as good as your last race and Schumis reputation is currently sinking faster than the Titanic.

I would agree with that but I would remove 01 from that list, the Ferrari that year was definitely the class of the field.

He had clearly the best car in 1994, it is not even a question.
In 2000 overall the Ferrari was better than the Mclaren by a little bit.
In 2001 the Ferrari was by far the class of the field. The only lesser driver that would not have won in that car is someone like Kazuki Nakajima.
In 2003 again Ferrari was clearly the car to have over the year.
He had the fastest and best cars all those years, so what are you talking about

Indeed. 1994 was his to lose. He had the fastest car and the main challenger died. He still had to punt Hill off at the final race.

2000 saw him with the fastest, most reliable package.
2001 was a Ferrari wipeout.
2003 was much the same, but like 1994 he seemed to try his best to give it away. Look at the number of wins. Schumacher had a huge car advantage, but like in 1994, he screwed up a huge number of races.

The rain meister had zero confidence in the changing conditions. It was interesting to hear Michael on the team radio: "the rain is coming down again." The scolding team reply: "Uuuuh,...Michael we think the rain will last for longer than it was before but it will be the same intensity....Nico has stayed on dry tires all the time!" After the 2nd safety car restart Schumacher must have dropped four positions in the space of two laps. The car was good enough for at least 8th place. Rosberg was solid.

Wrong. The Williams was the number one car that season, something that wasn't even a question amongst fellow drivers and f1 experts. Confirmed by the likes of Damon Hill and others, check youtube.

Why would you have confidence in a car that feels unbalanced even in dry conditions? The rain just amplifies these kinds of problems. After seeing MS struggle during qualifying even I predicted that on this very forum, especially since you're not allowed to change your setup between Q and race. Towards the end the car was obviously spent, Petrov was lapping 4 seconds faster, Massa about 2,5 seconds. With no grip during corner exit you already enter the long straight with a massive speed disadvantage. Less grip means = more slide = more tyre wear. Defending in that situation would be impossible for any driver. Schumacher lost his race on friday and saturday. His onboard camera footage looked horrible on those days, massive amounts of understeer.

Not really. It wasn't until the B-spec came along around Silverstone that the Williams became a dominant car. Before that Hill was generally fighting it out amongst the Ferrari's.

Yeah that wasnt really the tone of that conversation at all. He informed them of the rain, they gave him the weather forecast and let him know that Rosberg had not changed last time and it worked for him.

Michael had a bad race, Nico had a very good one, but there is no need to be silly about it.

What season did you watch in 2000.

The Mclaren was much better tyre wise during the races up until Monza 2000 at least, before then the ferrari was chewing it's tyres up a little bit more. Ferrari had a better car then in 1999/98/97, because it was better on more tracks and previous seasons until that point, but Mclaren still had a advantage in many races, if you look at Spain the great aero track, Hakkinen and mclaren owned it until 2001 when ferrari got a aero advantage. The mclaren of 2000 actually won the car of the year awards in f1 racing, voted as the best car of the year.

2003 was a tyre war, very difficult season, in some races the ferrari was fighting for points not wins, look a france, the michelin weekend, Rubens was nowhere, the fact michael got on the podium on a michelin weekend was one of the best drives of the season, Michael's won france like 8/9 times, he and Kimi have shown exceptional speed there, the fastest own certiain sectors there like they did. Hockenheim 2003, again Michael was fighting for points not wins, williams owned that weekend. It was a season of 3 cars doing well at various points, Montoya threw away a win at albert park, Schumacher and him dueled it out cloesly for Monza pole, Schuey won, it wasn't that much difference, there was no big advantage, Rubens wasn't even close to Michael in qualifying compared to 2004 when michael had the standout car. 2003 is one of MS's best ferrari seasons in a season designed to slow down MS and ferrari with lottery type rules, lets not forget back then the championship leader was first out in qualifying one to basically sweep the track for others, what was that about? 2003 was designed to slip up MS and ferrari, it almost did, but you have to admire them for overcoming challenges and adapting/utilising what they still had, I still think 2003 was the year the sport overeacted because of MS winning too much, no other driver in a team has had the sport change it's rules for the fear of too much winning. Infact had they left the rules alone, and let the tyre war play out, the qualifying in 2003 would of been more sporting and fair, bascially the qualifying they had was designed to slow down and force strong teams to slip up, I remember how many people were angry about it, let Schumacher come out first in quali 1, so what he's won loads, lets trip him up. That's what the FIA did because the other teams didn't do a good job in 2002, and the rules now still haven't recovered from that season. So if you wanna talk about 2003, it was the year Michael beat not just other drivers in points, but the FIA's overeaction to his own winning with ferrari.




It's easy to abbreviate and rewri

I was one of those people, i have to believe he's over the hill now, 3 years away have done for him

Its also sad to see MS performing at a reduced level

Of cource he had zero confidence, he knew after qualifying he couldn't change the set up of the car, so no matter what the rain may have done in various stages of the gp, he was never going to excel the way he wanted too, he even admitted he wasn't expecting much race progress after qualifying. Something happened on Saturday that was just too big of a gap to give away, if he was that far away from rosberg in albert park/sepang/bahrain then I would believe there was something to it. But this seems like a proper bad weekend of dialing the car in, and we don't know the reasons behind it, and given the progress in sessions we saw at albert park/sepang. If you add this weekend along with his other races that didn't go to plan, it all creates a perception much worser then it seems, a succession/trend.

The first 4 races of MS voting wise

Bahrain-finished 6th-his pace was close/respectable for a first race back
Albert Park-in sessions showed pace, in the race damaged car/
China-lacked serious speed after qualifying, and admitted race wouldn't be different, bad weekend
Sepang-DNF early


So really he's had one decent weekend-bahrain
and one bad weekend-china-where we don't know the technical reasons why he couldn't get grip out of the easier corners


It's a scrappy affair of flyaway races, maybe he could of been more luckier in aussie and sepang to deflect the bad weekend of china, but that's what you got, not a result fit for a star yet, now spain/monaco/canada can change the perception, we've seen this in the past with michael's bad weekends, he bounced back to change perception, 2003 first 3 races didn't go according to plan, ferrari crisis and ms crisis. The come back crisis is the new trend now.

Schumacher was bored in Indy 2002 and staged a dead heat with Rubens, and was playing with his win, where was the ambition? With Mercedes you got ambition like MS had with ferrari before they won in 2000, whatever issues he's had and will have this year, I think many forget how driven he is to improve, and given his career and how close he was to rosbert in the pit parts we've seen before china, it's very difficult to always write him off, especially if he wants to win another title, if you got ambition and being who he is, it's very difficult to write off his future potential.

Don't know if you meant to do that, but it is quite apropos.

His car was certainly the best car Michael Schumacher could have had in 1994, not only the fastest over the season, but designed for him and highly dubious in terms of legality. I don't think he ever won the WDC without having at least the equal best car.

why don't you take the time and watch this youtube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHhV0hn9qLQ...feature=related

the interesting bit comes at 6:48. but there's loads in there where real formula 1 insiders disagree with the haters around here.

I saw the races and I saw the benetton of Schumacher being by far the faster car, especially at the beginning of the season. When he finished the races, he won by a mile and easily.
One could make a case for benetton not being that superior in 1995, but in 1994 it was by far the best car.


At spain the great aero track and at many other races, schumacher was just too hard on his tyres, whereas MH knew how to save tyres.
Ferrari had a clear edge in qualifying. Ferrari best car of the season (it was more reliable than the McLaren as well)

Silverstone, BS weekend, where was michael when Barrichello was winning the race?

What about the start of the season when schumacher made mistakes in all 3 first races? Or the many races at start of the season where Williams was nowhere?

Schumacher himself threw away the win first at melbourne when he went off on his outlap. In qualifying it was 10 to 6 for MS, so only a little difference between those two.
At monza RB was given a lesser engine by Ferrari, probably because the last three races before that he had been faster than MS.


One of his best seasons? He had by far the best car and only because of his car being far more reliable than that of his main rivals, did he win the title.





That clip lost every bit of credibility it might have had the moment eddie jordan appeared.

Everybody is bashing, now, out of pure Schadenfreude. But it is all nonsense. No one can seriously dispute the fact that Schumacher made all the other drivers look average, and that he made it not in superior machinery. In the last years he did have superior machinery, but then that is natural.

Having watched the Chinese GP I frankly don't understand what was going on, and I really suspect a faulty chassis or something.

He was about one whole second per lap slower than Rosberg. Now that, I think, is completely impossible for a driver such as Schumacher, and in fact was not expected from his previous races this year.

So my hypothesis is that the chassis was faulty or some other explanation.

As Norbert Haug has already suggested such a possibility, let's wait and see. But it is impossible that a driver that has played level in races with his team mate suddenly gets one whole second slower than him.

Well I'm not interested in people purposefully exaggerating for the purposes of their 'agenda', so I'm not gonna bother taking the time to properly post, man. Waste of my time, obviously, as you clearly have no interests in having reasonable discussion.

Once the ridiculous bashing goes away, maybe this thread will actually be interesting again.....

So saying that Schumacher won titles in the best cars is now called exaggerating?

Well, I do apologize then.
He won titles in the very worst cars of the field, his driving ability is 10000 times superior to that of anyone else in history.

I think you are correct. The chassis is faulty between the seat and the steering wheel.

Yeah, cause Eddie Jordan definitely has less insight in the matter than you do.

Kerrazzzyy.

Eddie jordan has shared enough of his wisdom over the years, so much shared wisdom in fact that people do not take his views too seriously anymore.

by 'interesting bit' do you mean the part where johnathan legard, a man routinely derided for his lack of understanding of F1, states, on a documentary he's being paid to commentate on to praise schumacher, that schumacher won against 'superior machinery'?


There are a few holes there i'm afraid.

Just to point out that button actually finished 3rd in 2004 albeit a long way behind the uber dominant ferraris...

Couldn't be put better.

would you, however, accept Damon Hill's statements of MS being in another league than the rest of the field? Or is that just another delusional character paid to praise him?

Indeed. Myth of Michael exploded.

Nobody in their right mind would seriously dispute Schumie was a seriously good champion but like Piquet his record is flattering. As much ass I dislike Senna for his ruthless approach I would put him and Jim Clark on a different level. Where Michael excelled was putting a team around him and maximising everything before the lights went out. Having said that some of his drives were mesmerisingly brilliant but there were a few who were quicker on outright pace.

Now he has to face a 24 year old rising star in a team which doesn't revolve around him and no testing allowed during the season he is struggling. I maintain China will be his low point but I will be surprised if he reaches the heights of his earlier career. Rosberg will be getting plenty of attention in the quest for more speed as long as he is a serious contender for WDC and Michael is nowhere.

no i can easily accept he was one of the best drivers of his generation, i know he was good i just don't think he was '7-times-world-champion' good. His career stats do not reflect his talent alone, they reflect a blend of ability, management, manipulation and providence.

...as does any F1 career.

the balance of those elements dictates how close the resulting stats are to the drivers talent.


Gilles Villeneuve, huge talent, poor management, no manipulation, poor luck = poor stats.

Mike Hawthorn, average talent, average management, no maipulation, great luck = World champion


Madonna is one of the most famous singers in the world, do you think that makes her the best in the world? or an average singer with a phenomenal talent for marketing herself?

94 the best car you are joking right? If it wa how come is team mates bearly got points that year.
03 best car wrong again.

Generally agree with your points (and wish more people could see this, what seems very obvious, 'formula' - pretty much like any aspect of life), but can't agree that Hawthorn was an "average" talent.....

you just defined the difference between a great driver and a great champion. look at lance armstrong. not the most gifted cyclist out there, his determination, ruthlessness, aggression and wits, his ability to forge a team around him made him what he was. guys like prost, senna or alonso are cut out of the same cloth. you don't just go sit in a car, drive fast and break every record in the history books.

i think some of you need a wake up call. you don't just enter a new team, bully your team mate into submission and be done with it. to be accepted as number one you first have deliver the goods on the road, again and again. that's the only thing that will get you any leverage within the team and it's the only thing that will eventually earn you a seat in the best car of the field. schumacher earned all these things by being that good. so don't get the causality wrong. schumacher didn't just win because he had the best car but he got into the best car because he was the best guy out there. that's why even today guys like vettel, alonso or hamilton don't drive for lotus or virgin.

well he was a race winner and i'm no expert on his career but in comparison with the best of his generation he was a coulthard or a barrichello not a prost or clark.

I'm surprised Schumacher has had poor results so far but one thing is certain, he's only going to get faster and if he can get close to Rosberg's raw pace I think he will outsmart and outscore him. He certainly knows more overtaking and defensive tricks than Rosberg due to his vast experience.

Let's not forget the Brawn factor either - Ross Brawn knows exactly the way Schumi likes the car to be and I'm sure that come Barcelona, he'll have a car which will be much more to his liking.

'Greatness' for me is not a statistical quality. Certainly, if you are ruthless, you will have greater statistical success as the definition of ruthless is the pursuit of a goal at the expense of all other outcomes. If you do not allow other issues to distract you from winning then you will win much more but at what cost? do you reach a point where your ruthlessness, your obsession with being number one becomes so cynical that it actually devalues your results? This is what has happened to MS

No one questions the records of Fangio, Clark, Stewart, Moss, Prost etc but Schumachers results are constantly questioned despite his obvious talent. This is because there are so many layers of manipulation, protection, luck, corruption and favouritism built around his talent that his records have become inflated to the point where they bear little relationship to that talent.

How many champions have had 4 years with a dominant car, near perfect reliability, weak team mate, and 18 races a year? you can rack up a lot of big numbers with that kind of career.

Didn't he know before now? Why has Ross given him a car he doesn't like up until now?

schumacher's record isn't questioned by many. maybe you should get off the forum a bit more. he is widely regarded as the best driver in f1 history, only challenged by fangio or senna. he is not the most popular guy. how do you measure his luck, manipulation or favouritism as compared to prost or senna? you don't know what was going on within their teams. they all had their fair share of cheating on track as well, but senna died young and became a myth while schumacher went on to smash every record imaginable to the point that he virtually destroyed f1. he's just too easy to hate on. nobody likes a stiff, dominant german.

salaries are a pretty good indicator of how the inner F1 circle values a driver. you don't earn the kind of money that schumacher earned without bringing anything extra to the table. if someone else could pull off the successes of schumacher in the same car for a lot less money, teams would be foolish to have him on the payroll.

Is he? Only challenged by Fangio or Senna? Are you sure?

Btw, I think Mercedes mistakenly hired Ralf Scumacher, and are too embarrassed to tell us.

Ehm, no he isn't..... a lot of people would put Senna, Fangio, Clark, Moss, and Prost ahead of him for starters, me included. Prost won 51 races and his early career was plagued with chronic car unreliability. If he'd had the cars that Schumacher had there's no question he would have equalled or surpassed Schumi's victory tally, I believe the same could easily be said for any of the aforementioned drivers. Don't even get me started on the lack of quality oppositon Schumi faced when compared to other greats from F1 history.

yeah, would have, could have....

There... fixed it

Because now they are reacting to the findings of the car's handling obviously

Even the MS's most ardent fanboys are not deluded enough to suggest the 2nd Benetton driver under flavio Briatore was anything more than Schumacher's personal test driver.
In 1994 the Benetton won some races by lapping the entire field and then most other races by 40+ seconds. Williams was blown away by raw pace that season, much more than 1995 when the Benetton/Williams were much more closely matched.

It was widely regarded at the time Williams had the quicker car. It's even detailed in the season review video

Whats is wrong with 35 year old grandad Hill, Berger, Hakkinen in the slowest McLaren's ever build 94-96. He wasl also up against single race winner Alesi and F1 giants like David Coulthard and Jacques villeneuve.

You're right, I apologise No disrespect meant to one D.Hill of course, probably my favourite F1 driver of all, but even he wouldn't say he was in the class of the 'big 4' of the 80's for example. We see the same in Schumi's period of dominance from 2000-2004, a total lack of quality opposition and a lap-dog for a team-mate. He came a bit 'unstuck' when he did face quality opposition in the form of Hakkinen and Alonso though.....

P.S. I know Raikonnen was good too, but his car.....hmmmm.

Yes, its illuminating to read what Johnny Herbert has to say about his time at Benetton, one guy who's definitely not a whinger or excuse-maker, but he maintains that Schumi ensured he didn't have a chance to compete equally, he doesn't say this about any other team he drove for.......

The 1995 Williams seemed quicker out of the box, Hill would have won the first 3 races but for the suspension failure in Brazil, however over the season the Benetton seemed to develop faster.

IYO of course.....