This and your next post, very interesting.

It is interesting, because if he was slow all around the track, that would be different. MS found a set up at Bahrain which allowed him to pipe Rosberg's fastest lap by a whisker in his first race back, soooooo, add that and this chassic damaged issue, along with the fact rain races arent't ideal to get basic data in the dry, and we've had 2 races in the rain, plus no testing, add the mixture of badluck with the wheetnut dnf in sepang and the broken wing at albert park, china you could say is a result of a bizarre mixture of races that haven't been consistent races for various of reasons, and different tracks pose different set up issues and can bring problems you normally would of spotted pre season. if Michael was really off the pace at bahrain, then I think he would be in trouble, but this seems a big technical issue from the inside which isn't easy chasing up given back to back flyaway races.

As you know, Schumacher is losing time in the slow, not technically demanding corners. Specifically, he is losing time in the acceleration phase of the corner. hence the remark that he is too accustomed to traction control. However, both Haug and Brown seem to think that the problem can't be with Schumacher, hence the chassis theory.

It would indeed be much more in keeping with what most of us expected that in spite of a chassis problem he is (except in China) more or less managing to be fast.

Let's wait and see.

As you are a big Schumacher fan, you might like Alonso's declaration that he is still watching Schumacher closely, because Alonso knows what Schumacher is capable of.

But really, we only have to wait about 5 days to find out whether the chassis theory is correct or not.

Cheers,mate.



He was,I think he's moved on after he retired to where most of the action is-first Hamilton,now Alonso...Classic glory hunter.




About Michael's issues,he was struggling to get traction out of the two hairpins at Shanghai,plus a handful of corners that had tight exits: worn tyres and an understeering car make it impossible to accelerate quickly because you're losing both grip in the rears and cannot point the car the right way for the exits. Most of the cars that overtook him caught up with him on these very parts of the track. IMO this is possibly the worst combination of problems you could have on a racecar-you could play with the gear shifting to get better traction but the understeer is then aggravated,or you could artificially point the car into the corner to work the understeer,risking greater tyre wear that makes it difficult to keep her steady.

or maybe in his efforts to go quicker they have got themselves lost in their setups

it has been suggested for instance that they tried moving weight forward but then found they had excessive lack of traction in the rears exacerbated byt he need to be on intermediates which behaved completely differently previous years and faded rapidly

I think that was the reason why these issues cropped up in the first place,yes. As was widely reported,they were compensating for the fundamental balance problem of the car with excess oversteer which didn't work,so I think they tried going the other way (more similar to Rosberg's setup,as MS himself admitted at China) which brought along a fresh set of problems with it. The parc ferme rules and new inter compounds didn't help either. This isn't to say none of the other drivers have had similar issues,of course,but then again not one of them has been away from racing for three years.

Interestingly the last time MS was super-quick was in Australia,FPs 2 and 3. From the onboards he appeared to be right on the limit and had enough confidence in the car to push: went the wrong way with the setup and was slower in quali,and after the first corner incident he has never been as quick. If the chassis was indeed damaged in that accident,the reworked one should be a big help.

The losses to Calzaghe (split decision) and Jermain Taylor (very close in both fights) could have gone either way. Still, it doesn't change the fact that at the age of 45+ he is still at the top of his game and one of the best pound for pound fighters on the planet.

aditya-now is allowed his opinion as we all are, and no need to be a dipstick in replies to him or anyone. I am an MS fan and he did look like an arrogant sob lol, but doesn't now, not really, and that is my opinion. And if you're not down with that I got two words for you. (U need to be a DX fan to know what I mean)

In his prime he wouldnt have lost any of those fights

Interesting points angst.

Michael has always been fast however, when he drove for Jordan and Benetton in 1991, 1992 and 1993 respectively, and this was during a period of no refuelling. Granted things are different now, as cars aren't setup differently for qualification and the race due to Parc Ferme regulations. Also in the early 90s I think drivers could adjust the balance of their cars by using different compounds front to rear or for individual corners, that is a luxury not enjoyed today.



This makes me wonder how good of a test driver he was, as a racing driver also needs to be a test driver. Being able to drive around problems in the car is great during the competitive parts of a race weekend (qualification and the race), but I would think during testing a driver would need to drive in a consistent yet quick manner, one in which matches he/her usual driving style so that they can communicate any unsatisfactory traits to the engineers.

I don't really know much about boxing, but as I see it the point is that Hopkins even well into his 40s is still competitive against the younger guys, even if not necessarily quite as good as before. I see it the same way regarding Schumi. I have a hard time imagining him being quite as fast as before, or to fully make up for the lacking speed compared to his old self with experience, as he's not really noticeably more experienced know than when he retired, but still some years older. But, I agree with Eddie Irvine, that even if he can't be quite as fast as before, he could probably still be very competitive. I assume that most people around here would agree with me when I say that Rosberg will never be as good as Schumi in his prime, and he is still second in the WDC. Michael doesn't have to be as good as before to justify his place in F1, because if that would apply to all drivers there would be no championship to run in, or at the very most at two car one with Hamilton and Alonso.

I didn't see anyone stifling an opinion,I was merely challenging it. I'm sure the rest of us that do so are allowed our opinions as well.

And I'm sure you'll agree finding justification for hate in a philosophy without fully understanding something that wasn't meant to be taken out of context is always a bad thing,and certainly has no place on an F1 forum. I mean a madman from Austria already went overboard with this half a century ago,look where that got us..

He's 41 and drives like an old lady. No excuses .... Bring back the Boss!

It's interesting to hear MS was losing most time in the tight corners. In the race at China it's natural to get passed at the final hairpin because of the long straight leading up to it but from a driving style point of view it's even more interesting if true.

The last time MS drove in F1 the cars had masses of traction control and the arguably more useful electronically controlled diffs under braking which have both been banned since. Combined with the simple fact more time is spent in slow corners I think overcoming the differences in driving stlye and setup required could be MS's biggest hurdle.

The current top drivers in the field have all driven an extra year on the slick tyres also. Schumacher dominated F1 in the groove tyre era and has probably spent less time on slicks in the last three years than even the new rookies who come up the ranks on slicks.

All this said I expected him to be well on the pace by now. Im happy to reserve final judgement to the 2nd half of the season has kicked off though.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83157

As I've tried to explain, my suggestion isn't one that says Schumacher is useless in any other conditions, but rather, that the refuelling era magnified his strengths and masked his weaknesses. His records still stand; F1 was run to those rules while he was racing. He was fast and competitive during '91-'93, no doubt; but he wasn't the dominating force he became.

Unfortunately there seems to be little room for logic in such a discussion.... It is pretty well-known that his driving style relies upon instigating oversteer, and sliding the rear wheels. This will have an effect on rear tyre wear (I don't know whether this could be more obvious). So, that he does this more than other drivers (which is what sets his driving style apart from others) means that rear tyre wear will, at times, become an issue. During the refuelling years tyres would be changed more regularly and fuel loads would be lighter (meaning less wear anyway, and also a more optimised set-up, than a set-up that needs to account for a much heavier load). I think that it is self-evident that if one accepts that he could run faster because of his particular driving style, which involves invoking slide into the rear wheels, he could go quicker than his opponents, and that (logically) such an approach will have a relative impact on rear tyre wear - then it follows that rules that lessen the impact of tyre wear and emphasise outright pace will magnify such a drivers strengths and mask his weakness.





Sounds like Ronnie Peterson

Again, linking to the point above, one wonders how much this impacted upon Ferrari's (and Bridgestone's) 2005 season - where tyres had to last the race.....

Michael needs a good result on the track; I do detect tiredness in him and Ross alike. Work on the car is one thing, but media pressure is another, and I hope it will be not THE factor to which he concedes defeat.

and as ive pointed to you a thousand times already ''he is not the first oversteery driver in f1 history for heaven's sake!!!''..

all oversteer guys slide their rears to an extent going thru fast/slow corners...theres no way one can say he slides it more than a senna or raikkonen or hamilton or vettel.theres no way to tell if he degrades them faster than any of the above.he doesnt have the qualifying pace either,on new tyres and lowest fuel loads which means it has nothing to do with strategy or tyre management issues.

theres actually plenty of room for logic here..the problem is u dont have have anyway near enough understanding of the issues your bringing up everytime plus the fact that it seems u have a definite agenda to follow.

can i make it any more clear or are you going to bless us with your thoroughly uneducated views again and again and again?

I think you're wrong here. OS drivers are using more the fronts, while understeer are wearing more the rears. Go check Kimi/Massa Nirburging 2009.

Could this be 1995 all over again? A fat old Mansell called it a day after the Spanish GP in a useless Mclaren. However he was only a tenth of a second slower than one of the all time qualifying greats Mika Hakkinen at his peak. If M Schumacher is unable to get closer to the pace of Rosberg after the special effort Mercedes has put in I can can see him throwing in the towel. Shame because his return stimulated much anticipation to the F1 world. The fact of the matter is the new generation are just too fast.

The similarities with Mansell 1995 are only superficial. In personality and temperament Mansell and Schumacher are nothing alike. Mansell's relationship with Ron Dennis was also as poor as Schumacher's with Brawn is good.

Did anyone know in 1995 that Mika was one of the all-time qualifying greats?


As many have said already, Schumacher and Brawn are famous for their work ethic and persistence. They have never been the kind to quit or back down. No one has given any public indication whatever that Schumacher is thinking of quitting, so these constant predictions that he'll soon quit are nonsense.

While I agree the refuelling era may have amplified his strengths and I don't think I've seen much evidence of this, it must be said that in 91-93 he didn't have the car or the experience to be the dominating force, despite this, as soon as he arrived on the scene he was viewed as a special talent.



It would be good to see a comparison (comments from the period) regarding his usage of tyres and that of his team mates and if he had any problems with wear.
Regardless of refuelling or no refuelling, excessive tyre wear is an issue if it crops up. During the refuelling era tyres were obviously less durable than they are now. If a car is optimised to do a 20 lap stint on a set of tyres, a driver who is prone to wearing his tyres excessively/more than others may still encounter problems, because the the car has probably been setup to take the tyres to the limit (in terms of maximum performance) by the end of the stint. Having said that there have been times in the past were Michael has had to switch strategies and extend a particular stint and I don't recall reading much about tyre wear being an issue.

Michael has stated that oversteer is not a trait he strives for when setting up his car, he likes a neutrally balanced car.
Yes, while I agree tyre wear is a big issue for Michael at Mercedes, does it explain his qualification pace?

It is still too early in my opinion to draw conclusions, but at the moment I'm leaning towards thinking that his problems stem from the car not suiting his style and rather than adapting (the disparity between himself and Nico seems too large for it to be a general weakness in his armour regarding rear wear in my opinion), he's altering the setup of the car and placing it within a region it simply doesn't like to be driven in. I think we've seen a similar pattern in Moto GP with Casey Stoner at Ducati and his various teammates.


How did his teammate fair?

Well grunge, I've just read all of your post and while I personally wouldn't have taken that tone you have raised some very good points that I agree with.

no,its the opposite way around,the OS drivers have higher grip levels in fronts as compared to the rear.their high front aerodynamic load means the rear have lesser traction and thus slide out from under the bottom ,providing the driver with oversteer.the sliding motion means their rears have higher wear rates than the fronts.this is because sliding the tyres causes tyre degradation and resultant wear.

its the opposite for understeer preferring guys.guys like kubica must have very high rear grip,i-e very high rear aerodnamic load.their rears must not slide..

This is something I need to learn more about because I've read both things: that sliding wears tires more and that sliding wears tires less. I think that Trust is likely right, though. When a tire is loaded and has a lot of grip, it's like the surface of the tire is being scraped off, and that's when you get those beads and marbles around the inside of the tire. When the tire slides, the surface is not working on the tire with as much friction or force.

I think maybe either is true depending on the surface, the driving style, and other factors.

EDIT: To bring this back on topic, I don't remember ever reading that Schumacher had a pattern of high rear tire wear. Could be wrong, though.

Trust is 100% wrong. Just think about it: Would you 'wear' more if I drag you along some tar, or if I rolled you?

I am pretty sure that Schumacher had a rep for been fairly hard on his rears especially in his first 1/2 of his ferrari career. Maybe that was down to the car been hard on them but I don't think he was ever known for been very kind to his tyres. However we can't really jump to any conclusions based on what happened in China as he had massive rear grip issues which causes excess wear which just leads to even more sliding.

You lose your patience at a point.the thing is ive been mentioning the same thing on the previous pages as well.they continue to ignore the points that show their theories are ridiculous and continue the useless banter.its like he/others suddenly read somewhere ''ohhh, schumacher wear his tyres faster''..and goes on ranting why this is the reason he hasnt succeeded this year...its like when they say ''a little knowledge is a dangerous thing''...

and the irony here is that im not even an MS fan.infact far from it..its the mere audacity with which some of the posters here have showcased their ignorance amazes/frustrates me.

even when you are going to bash someone,atleast ''make sense''...stop talking about driving styles and tyre wear because you are going to embarrass yourself repeatedly..stick to his ''unsportsmanlike'' antics or winning by team orders,or his illlegal benetton and youre fine.

sliding the tyres makes them lose grip with the tarmac.the weight these rear heavy cars exert on those tyres is enormous,once the tyre has to deal with that weight while it doesnt have enough traction with the surface underneath,makes them degrade quickly.

about oversteer and tyre wear,the situation is complicated.if one is talking about a ''general'' scenario'' where u ignore the type of car used(fwd,rwd,4wd)and the driving style,oversteer should wear the fronts quicker.but that doesnt happen in these RWD f1 cars.as i mentioned above,oversteer needs lesser rear grip(less aerodynamic load).this makes the rear lose traction,the same phenomenon with the 150 litres of fuel pushing down on those sliding tyres and u have high rear wear...

hope thats clear it to some extent

Sir Stirling Moss is certainly not holding back.

http://en.espnf1.com/mercedes/motorsport/story/15453.html

Particularly damning.

"People say it's because he's been away for three years and that sort of stuff, but I'm going to stick to what I said at the start of the season: Until now, he's never had a truly competitive team-mate," Moss said. "His seven world titles are, in my mind, misleading and I think we are seeing proof of that now he is up against Rosberg. Rosberg has proved himself as the team's No.1 and he's been faster than Schumacher in all circumstances.

Shouldn't Sterling concentrate on not falling down elevator shafts?

so after 3 years out and only 4 races that proves that MS's 7 world titles were misleading........strange logic Stirling...

So, shouting....my, what a very clever and knowledgable man you must be - so manly (pity you're not in the same room, eh?).

Let's address your points one by one, shall we?

"he doesnt have the qualifying pace either,on new tyres and lowest fuel loads which means it has nothing to do with strategy or tyre management issues."

So here you clearly believe that qualifying pace has no relationship with the race. That set-up for qualifying is, in no way, compromised for the race......

Here's a little snippet from an interview prior to the Malaysian GP ( Link )

Q: After two races, is there anything you want to change ahead of your third?
MS: My experiences at the last two races - especially in Melbourne - makes me think that we have been a little too conservative with the set-up for qualifying. We had a very good car on Saturday morning, but started to worry that the set-up might be a bit too aggressive for the race. With hindsight, it wasn’t the best decision. So that is something I will do differently here.

So, you see, given parc fermé regulations (I know he doesn't say this, but in my own ignorant way I'd figured this out.... strange that you in your grandness, and the position as ultimate authority on all things F1, couldn't ...) setting the car up simply for a good qualifying lap isn't any good. The set-up has to be a compromise with the race in mind. So, his qualifying performance isn't a seperate issue.

"..theres no way one can say he slides it more than a senna or raikkonen or hamilton or vettel.theres no way to tell if he degrades them faster than any of the above"

You are right, there is no clear-cut way to say that he slides it more than those drivers, nor do we know whether he degrades them faster than those drivers. That is why I have suggested this as a possibility.

So, as to Schumacher and tyre wear; what evidence do we have (which is, surely, what we can use to infer what we can have no clear-cut data upon) that Schumacher does, indeed, subject his rear tyres to greater wear.....

He admitted that his race was hampered by tyre wear but was confident he would get on top of the problem as the season progressed.

"There is the new rules with the tyres that everybody has to cope with," Schumacher added. "I struggled a little bit with those, I have to say, but after three years of not being there I guess it is natural that you have to find your way in to new bits and pieces and the team and myself are going to work on that."

from Link

One element that has caused Schumacher difficulty, as Sutil suggested, is tire degradation. Schumacher himself noted this after Shanghai. He said that for much of the race he was tentative about pacing himself, as he wasn’t sure of how quickly the tires would degrade. As it turned out, largely because of conditions, the tires went off very quickly. He’d also been having grip issues in dry conditions, especially in the exits of slower corners, because of tire wear.

As reported on ESPNF1, Mercedes team boss Ross Brawn echoed Schumacher’s remarks, saying, “We have some issues that we need to understand as the deterioration of his tyres and therefore his pace is a problem that we need to resolve before the next race. It’s not the difficult corners, but the technically simple ones [where he is struggling].”
Link

That's just a start. There is evidence here that it is tyre wear that is the problem that Schumacher is having to contend with. So, pray - oh great lord of F1 knowledge - what, exactly, has been uneducated about my views? Is it that sliding the rears will result in higher tyre wear? Is it that tyre management factors into qualifying results as much as in the races? Is it in believing that Schumacher is suffering from tyre wear problems? Please, do tell.

hilarious!





and true.


update: and they have more in common

http://ca.askmen.com/celebs/entertainment-...eck-injury.html

both have neck injuries!

Yeah, how dare anyone say one negative word about the god that is Schumi.

No one sane likes Celine dion, but there is no reason to compare her with such as schumacher.

That's pretty damning of your own integrity to kick an old gentleman when he is down.

I don't happen to agree with Stirling but his point of view has as much validity as yours or mine, why attack him? I think four "fly away" rounds is still a premature point to say "gone" but the point about "compulsion" he makes is valid. We will see soon. The "need" usually trumps the "desire" at this level and maybe Michael underneath it all has achieved all he "needs" and he just misses the racing, the attention, the intellectual challenge and whatever.

Rosberg is being clever in his comments about Michael and not giving him any extra incentive to up his act - a class act in the media stakes.

Stirling seems to have always an opinion about Schumacher, and not always very flattering at that, which, as I suspect, might be perhaps a reason why certain media outlets always give him public forum.

Let's see now, here we have Stirling Moss again making self serving comments about Schumacher, how novell! On the day that Brawn comments on how fired up Schumacher is to succeed, Moss suggests he has lost his desire; it's always nice to get slapped in the head with the truth as soon as your mouth finishes spewing nonsense. I would suggest that Moss doesn't actually employ his brain, he more likely engages his arse when he speaks, his arse being the more reliable mechanism.
Clearly (at least to me) if 7 championships had meaning, heck, the zero championships that Moss has would have a whole lot less, and hence maybe in his mind he wouldn't be the driver he thinks he was. It's funny to listen to some of these old farts with their still boundless egos try to fit themselves into some ranking of driver ability, as if it's at all possible! It actually disgusts me how pathetically self serving he is, and has been for at least the last 20 years. That said, I have also heard him say very interesting things and sometimes in a very entertaining manner, so it's not all bad. He is one of the greats, but he doesn't like Schumacher at all, and has never hidden the fact. Hence his motivation is strong dislike, and objective observation is not the result (is there observation at all, he seems to just make stuff up).

My opinion is that all this makes for controversial headlines, but has little to no substance.

Cooper

I do expect Michael Schumacher will win at least one race this season.

Stirling Moss was never really fond of Schumi and has made some comments like this before! He is trying to beat the man while he's is down just like many others who didn't get the opportunity till now! ;) God knows what would they do if Schumi starts to beat Nico! I guess start talking about the old things like preferential treatment, team order and blah blah blah....

I don't want to take this thread off-topic, and I also want to find my Carrol Smith books before I argue more about stuff I don't understand, but your analogy doesn't work for several reasons. The most obvious being that when a tire slides laterally it's not rolling laterally.

Not being either a Moss or Schumacher fanboy, I still can't help thinking Moss was right. I had much the same opinion when I heard Schuey was making a comeback - big mistake. It is possible to do so if you have a really powerful motivation - look at Lauda - but I couldn't see a powerful enough one for Schuey's comeback. If he was flat broke and desperately needed money, that could be powerful enough. but he's not. He went bike racing mostly for the fun and the new experience, and I think this venture is in the same line: a bit of fun, possibly nostalgic, but that's not powerful enough. You really must have a very fierce need to win, and I doubt Schuey has it now. He is almost in the position of a very talented but rich amateur, in it for the fun.

You could almost say that Schuey used to be Schuey, and now he's Pete Revson.

Must be tough to have been that good and have 0 WDC

Lets keep aside his 7 WDCs, does he deserve to be in F1? YES !! He has the pace.

I would like to see some clean dry races, MS will do better i think. Too many mad races till now. And he has been involved in incidents, had mech DNF.

Criticism should never be like a guillotine.

ohh dear as much id love not wasting time on this,ill give it another try..



again and again and again,ill point to you that this wear issue that he was worried about was not because his style causes increases degradation,this is because they had to decrease the rear traction too much to stop the car understeering.form bbc

Team principal Ross Brawn confirmed that his team had under-reacted to the new-for-2010 narrower tyres and as a result, the car's dynamics had resulted in a naturally understeering car.

It was a vicious circle: The car's weight distribution is wrong, according to Brawn, so bring weight forward and work the fronts harder to get the car to Schumacher's liking. But as a result the rear is light so traction is poor, which means the rear slides and wears out the tyres.



ths same thing i wrote above(and have been writing for the last three pages).NOBODY SAID TYRE WEAR HASNT BEEN AN ISSUE FOR SCHUMACHER THIS YEAR.its your repeated failure to understand that its was the balance issues that were causing the rear tyre degradation .from the same article..

Even Nico Rosberg, who can handle this car better, complained of high tyre degradation on the intermediates.

schumacher naturally suffers from more tyre wear because of his driving technique.a hamilton/vettel ,logic prevailing,would suffer from the same rear tyre wear if put inside a mercedes.

what more do u want me to explain???..seriously.

rear slides,rear slides,rear slides!!!...do u even know what that term means???...ive explained this before as well,its not like shumacher is doing something that nobody does.


for the millionth time,this is not because his style does that...for heaven's sake try to learn and get and perspective.



i never say said/meant that..youre whole idea was that it was schumi's driving style that made him wear his tyres so badly at china.,surely youre implying he was driving with an aggressive setup ,that made the tyres wear a lot more than rosberg..u cant have it both ways.either he had a conservative setup,no speed in quali but saves tyres in races..or he goes aggressive and shreds his tyres..but shouldnt he be showing his normal quali speed when he does that???......and the quote u posted even manages to negate your own theory.he said theyd been too conservative with the setups in the first two races...surely implying they planned to have more aggressive setups for the coming weekends,right?...well tyre wear at china was the brutal ,showing perhaps they did do that.and where was he in the qualifying speed with respect to rosberg?..

its your failure to understand the most basic things.when your struggling with understeer,youre going to struggle.be it qualifying or the race.



what more do u want me to explain???..seriously.

rear slides,rear slides,rear slides!!!...do u even know what that term means???...ive explained this before as well,its not like shumacher is doing something that nobody does..amateur kart racers learn to use controlled rear slides for heaven's sake!,specially thru the faster stuff...its a technique a lot of these top guys bring from karting experience.....but why would u know anything about this????

and again i ask u,why readers of this thread have to suffer for the fact that you have never ever stepped into a basic go-kart and dont know jack about the stuff youre bringing up?..

Strange. In 2005 Moss said Raikkonen was a top dog, and an MS Teamate was just as good as him. He says Button is a top driver and another MS teamate was also just as good. Yet he says MS never had competitive teamates. I must be missing something.

Would Brawn say anything opposite about the guy who is driving for his team and who he has known for such a long time? Would he say in public that Michael has lost his desire (I am not saying whether he has or hasnt, but if he has lost it, would Brawn say it - no way)



Do you consider yourself to be an objective observer regarding schumacher?

That senile old bugger never even won a WDC. What does he know?

And head held high, untainted by negative controversy. I never detected a hint of envy or bitterness when I interviewed Sir SM, just a gent who held to a code of honour which some drivers still do, others sadly have not seen the relevance of such etiquette.

His ability to judge the current situation has nothing to do with his lack of WDCs but arguably something to do with speaking from the position of someone from a distant era.

Clearly you are not of an intellect worth a pinch = IGNORE.