Thanks Sean. 96 Spain sounds appealing.The first MS/Ferrari win is a nice touch.

Was there ever a wet MS win at Suzuka by chance?

1998 Spa, despite hitting Coulthard in the spray while lapping him and not finishing.

Suzuka, no rain win, there was some rain towards the end of Suzuka 2000, but not enough to consider a proper rain win.


1998 Spa he was like Spain 1996, the driver owning f1 through a incrediable display that no one could question, which made the Couthard crash at Spa perhaps the most dramatic moments in MS's career, because his title points went, could of been in a stronger position come Suzuka, there are many paintings of MS's car in Spa 1998 with 3 wheels, because even on 3 wheels MS got the car back to the pits, which some thought was pretty cool as well, I think if you do Spa 98, show Schumacher's anger after the race and storming to Couthard's garage, because this is the Schumacher at the time who thought Couthard was trying to kill him, this was the Schumacher who badly wanted the title with ferrari was driving like man strung out by thousands of miles of testing in preparation for Spa 98, searching for tenths to fight the Mclarens, for it to finish with a dead end by lapping Couthard and crashing into him, Schumacher didn't get over this for sometime, quite understandably so. There's a picture of Schumacher's car on 3 wheels at Spa 1998 in Enzo's House, one of the crew put it there, a few years ago, Schumacher noticed it after giving a interview about his time with ferrari.

http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q...sa=N&tab=wi


Spa 98 was about giving f1 it's moments, it wasn't about the winner which was Jordans car, it was the drama of the race itself, the rain driving of MS, the crash of MS, then the reaction of MS after the race, it could actually be a good entertaining moment for a Schumacher feature film down he road, it was pretty much like a film in a way, real life racing drama

Jos Verstappen?!

Yeh, not a happy camper...


Thanks again Sean.

No wet race win in Suzuka but a great wet race win in Monaco in 1997, 53 seconds ahead of 2nd placed Rubens.

Here is two videos of Spain 1996

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWVMO3T5Q3c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi0iW2lLRjM...feature=related

And here is the qualifying lap of Schumi in Spa-Francochamps in the year 2004! He came second in the race but clinched his 7th world championship.

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

You'll probabley never see MS like that again, I think we missed a fist fight if it wasn't for so many mclaren guys in front of DC.
Great drama and bad blood between DC and MS pretty much until after 2000 when DC and MS made up.

I actually kinda miss the MS and DC feud, I remember Schumacher once saying, DC's time at Spa 2000 was a fluke

It was at the 2003 French GP that DC acknowledged that it was his fault, after that their relationship was OK again.

While searching for the spain 1996 video, I came across this video

Ford Mondeo MkI commercial with Michael Schumacher (1994)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOiLL0jvh4E

He was promising in Qually in China there for a bit too. I agree it is too early to say much from the sessions. But I stand by my original opinion that he'll come about one day. And I stand by my hope that he doesn't return to his old ways... :/

I think I have a winner. Haven't painted a Monaco setting yet, the race took place on my birthday (lol), & i already have Senna at Spa (entering Eau Rouge of course)
Right now its a toss up between that & Spain 96.
Great input guys.

In 1995. Started wet and finished dry.

If anyone was wondering, the J.Stewart depiction is the 1968 Nurburging (won by 4 mins2secs),
and Senna's is the 1985 Spa.

Looking forward to see your work!

acording to james allens blog one of the engineers told him schumachers chasis was probably losing 0.3seconds a lap even with the repairs.

they both have the same chasis/front suspension modification /over upgrades

Spa 1997 was a wet race and a great performance....

Often gets overlooked because of Monaco 1997.

Monaco 1997 was amazing. I was so lucky that I went to that race and saw it live! I remember that Schumacher was the only driver that shifted up into 6th gear along the main straight. You could hear every one going through the gears and Schumacher always went one gear higher for fraction of a sec before breaking for La Source. He seemed to have more traction comming out of the last turn thus giving him an edge in top speed past the pits. Great memory and partying all night at some bars across Mirabeau tops it off!!

His first lap was simply stunning : http://www.myvideo.de/watch/6073170/F1_199...L_Teil_1_von_10

One of my favourites. Race, JP as commentator, this is F1 that was close to my heart.

Yes, the mid to late 1990s had better F1 racing than today.

Great! Watching it now to draw inspiration

SeanValen posted about this article on Schumi V Nico thread. I just thought about posting it here also.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/jonathanlegard/...orm-in-spa.html

couldn't agree more

Shows Massa has been really learning from Schumacher then, as his high speed corners ability also impresses his engineers

Yup Sean is right. You will never see that expression on Schumi's face ever again! See this video from 4:01 to 4:18, you will be able to see his total disbelief & anger in what just happened to him.

http://www.myvideo.de/watch/220624/Michael_Schumacher

"The team have been hugely impressed by the 41-year-old's performance through the high-speed corners. "I've never seen anything like it," was how one team member put it. "Today was a genuine performance."

Eddie Irvine and Damon Hill have also said the same thing.

Irvine "His mid to high speed mid corner speed is incredible, i don't know how he does it"

Hill "You follow him into a high speed corner and you wait for him to go off, he's going too fast but he doesn't"

Speed thru the fast corners is one thing that does speak volumes about a driver's quality.it requires the most sensitive of throttle modulation and advanced LFBraking skill.this is what makes drivers like schumacher,raikkonen stand out on raw speed.the same reason why they succeed the most on ''driver'' tracks such as Spa and Suzuka.

Actually my favourite Schumacher year, full stop, disregarding the horrible end. France, Monaco, and Belgium stand out in my mind as super drives from Michael, in a car that had a very narrow performance window. I don't know if anyone remembers, but there were many murmurs that Ferrari achieved some interesting tricks with that car, namely '3D' throttle mapping, a pre-mapped, preconfigured system that gives results similar to traction control, but is not reactive. Patrick Head commented that the car was making "...some funny noises" out of the last corner (Lycee) at Magny Cours. A grey area in the rules. I'm pretty sure every team was doing this up to the return of TC in 2001 after '97. Whatever, I loved watching that Ferrari slide out of the Adelaide hairpin at full chat on a damp track, and how twitchy it was through the Imola chicane. Michael at his best. Yesterday reminded me of that a little bit.

Sebastian Vettel (GER/Red Bull) 1.50
Mark Webber (AUS/Red Bull) 4.00
Lewis Hamilton (GBR/McLaren) 10.00
Fernando Alonso (ESP/Ferrari) 12.00
Michael Schumacher (GER/Mercedes) 21.00
Jenson Button (GBR/McLaren) 21.00
Felipe Massa (BRA/Ferrari) 23.00
Nico Rosberg (GER/Mercedes) 41.00

odds for the qualification (bwin)

Hi-speed corning is all to do with balance. The car either has it (and is set up right) or it doesn't. There is very little a driver can do to extract time out of the car if the things just doesn't want to stay smooth through the corner. Not to mention that being a tenth or two faster at the end of the lap would be absolutely unnoticeable by the human eye when evaluating speed through a corner.

Telemetry is able to show a driver braking a meter or two later than their team mate. It can show a car going through the mid point of a turn at 273kph compared to 271kph. It could also show the driver getting on the throttle earlier and up to 305kph at the end of the straight compared to 302kph. But none of that is ever going to leave anyone in the sport jaw dropped, especially not watching on a TV or from the side of the track.

People serious romanticize too much when it comes to any drivers skill. It should be clear as day to anyone by now (especially after the last year) that if the car doesn't suit the drivers style, or the driver isn't familiar with the cars characteristics, then the driver won't be as fast as they could be. Talent may get you into F1, but the finer points like team support, confidence, and being comfortable with the car will give you that extra kph or two, not some divine skill. If half the crap that is said about some drivers and their unbelievable talents was true, they would be seconds faster than their team mates, not tenths or hundredths (or sometimes even slower).

Again, no driver if F1 will look visibly faster than another driver in a corner. Its all just talk.

I see the general point, but I'm not sure I agree with this. Standing trackside, and to a lesser extent, watching on television, you can start to tell fairly easily who is on it, and who isn't. Hand movements, the car's attitude and line all give things away.

True... but sometimes hand movements and car language are deceiving. Sometimes a driver looks on it, then goes slower than before. Many drivers have been guilty of overdriving the car and going slower then they could. It can look very impressive, but in the end not very effective.

If so why would teams pay dozens of millions of dollars for some drivers and let others pay for their seats?

Because:

1. They have more chance of winning (Not the same thing as being a Kph or two faster through the midpoint of a fast corner. More consistence, more reliable, more motivated, more adaptive, more thick-skinned etc)

2. Are more markable then another driver (Is any team not going to hire a driver who has a large fan base and will therefor bring in the sponsors? Usually fan favorite drivers are normally rather good as well. There not going to be a second or more off the pace)

Really, I fail to see how a drivers wage has any relevance as to if people can see a visible difference is the speed of one driver vs another in the midpoint of a high speed corner.

Knowing that the difference between team mates if often a few tenths at most over a whole lap, are you arguing that there is actually more then just a few Kph mid corner between drivers?

Driver's skill is measured in tenths not in seconds. Afterall, they are all close performance-wise, but if someone's talent brings 0.3 over other driver, I would say he is unbelievable talented than that other guy.

I'm not arguing it's just a few kph, I guess those are facts, there ain't dozens of kphs amongst f1 drivers in corners (well, hispania f1, virgin etc doesn't count here).

What I'm saying is almost all the guys driving in F1 [well at least those at the big teams] got to F1 becauses they are talented, and more talented than their fellas in lesser series.

Though what makes one more successful than the other amongst these cream of the cream guys is the ability to cross the line first more often than the others.

And crossing the line first is usually [disregarding unusual circumstances like SC etc for now] done with the highest average speed which is usually associated with having more speed - in corners as well.

Until they change a few parts on the car, and the other driver starts to go as fast, if not faster...

On a side note, after the whole Alonso/lewis, Kimi/Massa, Button in a brawn etc etc, type events that have happened over the last decade. I'm amazed people still believe in a picking order within the F1 ranks. Give almost any driver on the grid a fast car that suits their style and they will win. Give them a fast car that suits their style every year, and as long as they are motivated they will keep on winning. After a couple of WDC, they will get paid millions and they will be no more talented then when they were paying for a drive at the back of the grid finishing 15th every race.

Are you saying all drivers are equal?
Certainly top driver like Kimi wouldn't be beaten even in slower car than lets say, Glock in faster.

Finally knew how to surprise me again! When I saw his first sector in Q3 in his final lap I thought "that's it, it's over. Again Nico in front..". Then he puts in that third sector!!

Me too! But I sort of know he went back to the approach in Q2 and Q1 with a slower S1 (to be easy on the tyres) and have a push in S3.

In his first Q3 run, he did the opposite and clocked a 22.7 in S1 (finding 2 tenths more than their normal pace), only to lose 3 tenths in S3 with a 28.5 (previously a 28.2). I guess this has more to do with the tyres having some more to give at the end of the first lap if used gently in the initial sector ;) In his second Q3 lap, he did a 22.9 (boy you should see my disappointment when I saw that hehe) but did a 27.9 in S3, his fastest over the weekend. He was the only other driver that practically matched the Red Bulls in S3 (this was the trend in practices before quali too), with the latter doing 27.7 and 27.6 in S3 (they were the only three to break into the 27s in that sector).

Now I don't know if Koba indeed cost Schumi time, but 3 tenths could have spelled the difference between p3, p4 and p5.

Why not? Kimi was often beaten by Massa in the same car. And when Massa was in Glocks stage of his career people were questioning if he should even be in a F1 car, let alone be in contention for a Ferrari seat. I see no reason to think Glock doesn't have the talent to drive a car fast enough to match Kimi. He beat Trulli from time to time, and I don't think anyone questions Jarno's speed.



In driver talent? the ability to get a car around a track fast? Then Yes. I would say there is no measurable difference between almost any of the F1 drivers.

However, equal in their ability to win races and championships? no way. But that comes down to different skills. Ability to work, inspire, and motivate a team. Personal commitment, and work ethic. Confidence, motivation, the ability to handle pressure and be consistent even when things get hard. I would say that the character of the driver has more to do with results than just raw talent. If you can win 1 race then you can win 100. If you can win 1 WDC then you can win 10. If the talent is there to win one then there no reason why the second one will require any more skill. But how many drivers have the will to keep coming back win after win, and WDC after WDC?

Thats what makes MS great. Not because he was maybe a kph or two faster then EI in the middle of a corner. But because he just kept winning while his rivals gave up and retired.

Watching Michael Doohan at Phillip Island once in qualifying when every man and his dog had the same factory Honda and tyres but Doohan was not only visibly quicker he was also the only one grabbing one more gear than the others just before braking.

Just a small example of many hundreds of stories of the faster riders/drivers I can personally tell - I suggest you go to race tracks more often and telemetry doesn't talk but it does say an awful lot.




And I'm sure you actually believe this.

mehhh..maybe some of us do like to view telemetry(the very little we get thru articles)??..the same reason why we view live timing or onboard laps.

its the fast corners that separate the boys from the men.its requires pinpoint throttle inputs and unbelievable car control.the same reason u see the likes of senna,schumi,raikkonen dominating the driver's track Spa.the oversteery corner technique that schumi,hakkinen,raikkonen,hamilton etc have is a much more difficult to control than a neutral/understeery car.the rear wants to slip out everytime.



thats ridiculous logic.as u go towards the top of the talent pool,the difference b/w the drivers logically lessens.but that doesnt mean all of them are equal.

Yes, and bikes are the same as cars...

And how old are those hundreds of stories? 1970's and 80's maybe, when there was a visible differences between F1 drivers.

I've been to plenty of race tracks. I know for a fact that you can not tell the difference with the naked eye of a F1 car going 250kph or 252kph in the middle of a long fast corner. Ive also seen at the race track many drivers that look like they are really on it, only to cross the timing beam a second or more off the pace.

You can see drivers taking different lines at the track. You can hear them modulating the throttle differently. That in no way shape or form this will indicate speed through the corner when there is but 100's or a second in it.

contradicting yourself??.firstly claiming they are all at their bests in cars that are set to their preferences and then using the term ''same car".

for the zillionth time raikkonen has huge tyre heating issues further aggravated by the understeery car..his qualifying runs were screwed up because he couldnt get the necessary heat into the tyre(an understeery car doesnt have teh front grip an oversteery driver demands).

and relating to the ''fast corner'' stuff,maybe u could do well to read mark hughes telemetry comparisons b/w raikkonen and massa thru various fast corners.the difference b/w their throttle sensitivity was huge and massa kept losing tenths everytime.it also stated the LFBraking skill difference b/w the two drivers.

Aaah, so that must be it. The reason nobody else has won seven WDC is because, well, nobody apart from Michael has had the will to do it.

Please read the thread in context. It wasn't about a measurable difference using telemetry. It was people talking about MS being visibly faster through the middle of fast corners, as in actually being able to see with the eye him going faster then others.

Laugh all you want. But I have seen plenty of WDC loose motive after a few years of success, especially after maybe a year or 2 in a bad car. MS seems to be one of the few that just never gives up. Most would probably have given up at Ferrari before the year 2000 success happened. MS didn't. Hence why he was able to go on and win another 5.

It must be that.
Nice.