Prove it.

Funny you should mention those 3, their combined total of WDC's equals MS's and they also had the best cars and try tell me Lotus wasn't Clark's team ....

The entire time I was growing up drivers were rated on WDC wins, was all pretty easy till first Senna came along and we couldn't have that sort of driver the equal of Clark, no sir'ee and now MS has just entirely ruined the order of it all.

The old list was almost exclusively started with Fangio then Clark and then your actual preferences - you guys are just confused now because that pecking order has been upset but I can tell you who's first on German lists and I'll tell you who's first on Brazilian lists and I'll also tell you who's first on French lists .....


Anyway although this would appear to be the ultimate denial of F1 reality thread, it is in fact still the MS thread and one thing I admire about MS's record is that unlike some other drivers he won every WDC on the back of winning races.

He also has the incredible figure of winning more than 10% of Grand Prix's ever held in the entire history of F1 - thats a pretty stunning realization. Of course one has to be interested in actually realizing it

You can read from herbert's own words what happened although he says it and still can't understand it which is rather baffling.

They started off totally equal, Schumacher was better in every area one of the keys being development and willingness to test and be involved with the team, stay with them late at night making changes for the next day etc. while Herbert put in what he thought was all he should - he was wrong.

Have a look at any podium from any race win of MS's and look at the team's reaction. The team gave it's all and MS gave his all back, it's not rocket science and a lot of prima donna race drivers could learn a lot from it.

Interesting that Mercedes is using Coulthard for this production.

He is Mercedes driver too. Maybe little joke with McLaren(he was their driver before) and their new car? Maybe film is for UK? Or maybe Michael can drive with the steering wheel on the opposite side?

What does this has to do with Michael Schumacher's thread? Can you please explain yourself?

I say that is surely a contributor to his problems, yes. I didn't say it was the 'only' reason at all. You're fond of adding bits to my comments, I must say.



That's right, I do. because Michael was the better driver.



No I don't.



Again, not at all; I clearly stated that at the beginning of the year that was a valid argument, but now it's not.



I haven't even refuted the fact Rosberg is faster than him. My interest is in why, as I didn't expect that to be the case.



It was, in the days of Johnny Herbert and Rubens Barrichello who we were talking about; it's not now, as we see it every weekend.




Often! Anyone who thinks that things in this sport are black and white is surely very new to it or extremely hopeful; I've watched it for 40 years and seen much that confused me, and the 2010 performance of Michael Schumacher is among those confusing elements.

Your constant efforts to disable my discussion (it's not an argument from my side, after all) are hardly conducive to an interesting conversation, and neither are they doing anything other than confusing the issue; I make quite clear points that i'm of the opinion Michael misses teh comfort and all round security of the Ferrari days, something that I don't think is particularly difficult to understand, and yet within my posts you variously accuse me of 'alleging mistreatment' of Johnny Herbert, claiming that an 'inferior driver can beat a superior one consistently', dismissing possibilities tht I haven't even mentioned, coming to conclusions about Schumacher on the basis of what I believe about Herbert, and if I could bother to remember them some more pure inventions that have no basis in anythign I've said.

Why not concentrate on what I actually write, rather than what you think I'm writing?

I suspect that while to me Michael's performance this year is an interesting facet of the whole, to you it's something that desperately needs to be explained in order to keep the great mans name out of the mud.

It's quite an interesting comparison, though, isn't it? I'm not sure why 'they had the best cars' has anything to do with as so did Schumacher, but what makes these three interesting - in particular - is that the combined Grand Prix (note, not F1) races they took part in totalled 297; that's not many more than Michael has run so far. Their combined total of wins comes to 80, not much less than Michael has won so far. Even more interesting, however, is that each was undoubtedly killed at a point where there was more to come, especially with regard to Rindt and Clark. I've always wondered how the record books would look had they seen out their careers. Before you jump down my throat, I'm not taking anythign away from Michaels achievments here at all.

I like this bit you wrote, though:

"The entire time I was growing up drivers were rated on WDC wins,"

Really? A quick look at your profile says you're a similar age to me. I grew up with motor racing very much a part of the family thanks to my fathers job, and drivers were no more 'rated on WDC wins' then when they were now. If they had been, the likes of Stirling Moss, Jacky Ickx, Tony Brooks, Pedro Rodriguez, and any number of others I could throw into the mix would never have got a look in.

Back then, for want of a better phrase, drivers were 'rated' on their ability to drive a racing car. It didn't matter what that racing car was, for as you well know 'back then' Grand Prix drivers did not just take part in a dozen and a half races of exaggerated importance each season; until the early 1970's the Grand Prix season consisted of a selection of races that counted for the WDC and WCC - the latter from the late 50's on - and many more Grands Prix besides. This is why Jim Clarks actual toll of Grand Prix wins is higher than the 33 he is listed with in the record books. Further, most f1 drivers would also take part in the then still prestigious F2 championship, adding much more to their rosta, plus world championship endurance racing, and on many occasions even saloon car races too. Drivers were 'rated', notably, on their ability to race - not their ability to win Formula One World Championships. The latter was, of course, the ultimate goal in some ways, but not as it is now.

It's interesting, in raising those three men - and I have to say Clark and Rindt, and others from that era, in particular - we raise a point that is very much a key to the discussion about Schumacher in 2010: adaptability.

There seem to be several people on this board, who think that Schumacher brings a lot of value to Mercedes even when not performing well on the track. I live in India and early on in the year there were ads with MS driving the new gullwing. These were replaced with ads with both MS and NR driving the F1 car. Now Merc has gone with DC in their latest film to be shown in all their dealerships around the world despite having the most recognizable driver in their payroll. Sorry if you don't find it relevant.

Sorry but that's not true - Barrichello (nor any of MS's teammates bar Piquet) never had equal conditions with Schumacher. Barrichello was driving the same equipment, but that equipment (car and tires) had been designed just exactly along the lines how Schumacher had wanted it to be. Schumacher didn't have to adapt to it, Barrichello had to adapt every time. Also the optimum strategy was always Schumacher's, not Barrichello's. So no, there never were "equal conditions" between Barrichello and Schumacher.

How it would have unfolded, if they both had been in a team that had compromised between their drivers, let alone if Barrichello had received the advantages Schumacher used to get, no one knows for sure. "Equal" treatment - well I'm tempted as well to say MS. But still, despite being certainly disadvantaged Barrichello often ran pretty close and occasionally even beat him, so I'd say the difference wouldn't have been big. And IMO all it would have needed was "ill suited front tires for MS" to make it a Barrichello's year.

Mid / late 2003 is a perfect example why MS is waaaay overrated and had everything
built to his liking. Bridgestone got their tires wrong by accident but they worked with Rubens.
Rubens became faster than Michael and won races while Schumacher was lapped by Alonso
in Hungary.

It certainly is irrelevant! First of all The gullwing ad has really become famous! On youtube it has more than 400,000 views! Almost all article published on that car mentions " the car with which Michael Schumacher does a 360° turn".

Now coming to the M.S & N.R driving an F1 car together, it's a ad from Petronas. MGP title sponsor so they obviously will show both the MGP drivers just like Vodafone ad has both L.H & J.B!

And D.C doing this ad for Mercedes also means nothing! He is a Mercedes DTM driver & has alot of free time in hand so he did the ad!
M.S during his retirement period did ads for Ferrari while there official F1 drivers were focused on F1, so what?

Maybe 'equal conditions' came about as Michael was not at his best on those occasions, I don't know. What I'm saying is that there were occasions when Barrichello could beat him.

if Michael had been in that ad would it have been irrelevant?

That's a very fair statement. It very often is indeed so. That's why I admire those posters with a balanced take on things.
ForeverF1 told me once that he "had the pleasure of talking with all the past greats which is why I now no longer support any one driver or team, I support them all."

I found this sentence very educating and exemplary - and I do know that I myself have still to learn in that department.

* at ForeverF1: I hope I did not misuse your trust by making the above statement public - I find your sentence hugely inspirational and putting things into the proper perspective. We all can learn from that.

http://f1professor.wordpress.com/2010/08/1...e-back-in-2011/

A fan blog.

This is so cool...

I don't know what the little smoky man means. Does that denote sarcasm?

Im not sure why you have drawn our attention to this - perhaps you could elaborate on your reasoning? It's hardly ground breaking or original, after all, and misses completely the fact that contracts are a two way agreement.

Just being nice. I thought some people might enjoy reading it.

You cite one example? Wow, you win.


PS: Remind us all who finished AHEAD in the World Driver's Championship in 2003? Infact, remind us who actually WON the World Driver's Championship in 2003.

I think the smokey means that he is smoking. EU warning: smoking can seriously damage your health and those of others! Smoking can kill!





Concerning the blog of the Professor: I concur that for Michael Schumacher it is virtually impossible to walk away when he is in such a low. He will try whatever is in his might to exit on a high.
Let´s see if he succeeds.

Well I for one agree with this. And I think he'll very likely improve his performance next year - a lot of it of course depends on the new Pirellis.

Or so we're told. I remain pretty sceptical whether different tyres would change much. The only way to know would be to put the drivers (not only MS) who use that excuse back on past tyres along with their respective better performing teammates, but that never happens, obviously.

Maybe I'm too cynic, but I suspect that's why the tyre excuse is used so regularity, because there is no way to verify it.

I keep reading this and I still think it's still utter bollocks. How can MS focus on 2011 now? Today? By meditating? Fair enough, the engineers can take his feedback on race weekends on this years car and put it into the designs for the next year, but MS won't be giving them real world feedback before next years testing season. However the best way he can help the team on the next years car is to find set up solutions to make the current car go faster on race weekends.

Well the tire "excuse" is in fact pretty valid as with the current telemetry they can see the tire temperature / tire grip in relation to the downforce levels all the time. This in turn depends on track condition, setup and rubber compound characteristics in relation with the overall car characteristics.

Drivers (or rather different driving styles) prefer different setups and car characteristics, so tire grip varies between drivers as well. The engineers can also see if driver A has more tire grip than driver B, so they do know if the drivers talk bollocks (regards the tires).

but we know the brawn car had issues with tyres last year or were button and rubens seeing into the future and saw schumacher needed tyre excuses

An interesting side-note: Nick Heidfeld is doing the tyre development tests for Pirelli 2011. Albeit in a Toyota, I would be curious if he is not feeding them data that is in Michael´s favour. After all, Nick is also on Daimler-Benz´s payroll....

That may be true to a large extent, the engineers surely know... a lot more than they would prepared to tell publicly, in any case they wouldn't come out with stuff to slag their current drivers, even if they had facts to support it. I know RB has come in support of MS and blamed the tyres, yet I'm not convinced, he's basically in the same position as Norbert Haug, long-time buddy of MS and instrumental in bringing him back.

And even if we buy into this evil tyres theory, it's not really a valid excuse, not for a supposed star driver. They are supposed to adapt and get at least as much out of the equipment as the guy in the other car, even if they'd prefer equipment with different characteristics. In fact that's what we witnessed with Alonso in 2007, in all likelihood he would have prefered to stay on Michelins and be far more at ease, yet did he complain? Not really, all I remember is him saying that adapting to the Bridgestones is difficult and the main area to work on for him. That's what I'd expect, not "Oh, it's the tyres, they're shit, nothing to do about it than to wait for more suitable ones next season, maybe, hopefully."

Does anyone know if Schumacher is still going to get a new car/chassis for Spa? Originally, they said it would be for Silvestone but 'development' was put back 6 weeks to Spa if I recall correctly.

Is this still the case or does the 2010 development freeze by Mercedes mean that effectively no more car/aero/chassis updates for the 2010 season?

I don't know, best to ask Raikkonen, he won Spa last year in a development frozen Ferrari.

Did test with Nick in Toyota car started? We hear for such possibility , but is it real? What I think is, even if this happen Nick will use this to get in some team for next year, than just helping MGP.
I expect new chassis for Michael in SPA.

I tried asking Kimi but his manager told me that he'd parked his Citroen in a ditch and went off to have an ice cream.

I am not so sure that in this day of ultra limited testing that he should on pace this season. The tyres are massively different and he cannot get them to work for him. The car suffers from understeer and he prefers a pointy car as Jenson Button himself commented.

I will say that he is not what is was.... But I will also say that he is still deserving of the Merc seat.

It is real - MSA (motorsport aktuell) reported it in their Tuesday edition.

lol the moron is gonna get killed doing Rally!

Very little difference in car concepts over Clark's career compared to the changes (including teams) of FIA tech every year since 1992, MS adapted to it all. And yes he is apparently having trouble adapting this year.

I'd say that there are considerable differences between 1½-litre F1 cars, 3-litre F1 cars, 1-litre F2 cars, Indianapolis cars, sports-racing cars, road-going sports cars and saloon cars. Clark won consistently, and concurrently, in all these, and impressed in his only NASCAR drive until the car broke. Lifew12's point about adaptability seems very sensible to me.

It is wholly futile to try to even guess if Clark, Fangio, Moss, anyone from that era would have been faster than any driver from this era, or he than they. The difference is just enormous in the nature of the cars and the driving. Maybe one of those would have been superb now.. maybe they would not have been any good at all. Would any of them have been able to be fit enough? Maybe. Maybe Michael would have just never been any good in those cars, but maybe he would have been sublime..

Just because they drove a wide range of cars does not mean much on this front, as none of those cars had anything in common with a modern F1 car, and vice versa.

I say this as someone in awe of what those guys did.

I agree absolutely. That's why all those 'Hundred Greatest Drivers Ever' rankings are so pointless. There are enough arguments about the relative performances of drivers racing now, without pretending we can compare one now with one who raced when the sport was completely different.
I just felt it was important to refute any suggestion that Clark and his contemporaries had been successful only in a specific type of vehicle, lest those readers who were not around in those days should be misled.

I would challenge the notion that the ferrari cars were designed solely with michael in mind.

that the team was focused on him is not in question. note though that after todt came michael. the super team was built BECAUSE michael was also at ferrari - such had been the admiration that had developed amongst those at benetton where the car had not been necessarily the class of the field but certainly took it to senna and williams

however we saw with the 2000 - 2004 ferrari that thre would have been quick in anyones hand esp from 2001 onwards.

I believed that as the car improved so michaels teammates began to match him and even beat him on occassion. I have no problem with that.

the cars built esp for michael seemd more the benettons where the team were originally trying to overcome an engine deficiency in comparison to the wiliams and decided that by designning the car with michael in mind was their only chance.

look at when brundle climbed into the 2004 ferrari how driveable he found it. much the same difference we are seeing with the current red bull. note though michaels reputation was built BEFORE the domination of 2001 onwards

I accept tyour stance aas stated muz bee and perhpas I mistook your thrust.

sadly for herbert he simply wasnt the driver he had been before his big shunt

You prove a point I have put forward about many fans of Schumacher. You can't let anyone's opinion pass as their opinion. I clearly stated (in asperation) "my opinion"!

If you're going to be a warrior of the keyboard how about stepping back and seeing that not everyone shares your opinions on everything. Obviously comparing drivers of eras so far apart is difficult. Clearly the drivers of Clark's time had the following factors not in their favour - lifespan, number of GPs per season, reliability.

Regards the bolded part of your post you might like to check out the maths of Clark's 24 wins from 75 starts IIRC. Other issues in your rebuttal concern "on the back of winning races" and Michael's excellent carriage of choice from 2000 - 2004 (pretty fast, totally reliable).

If you had read my post in context it would show I am indeed an admirer of Michael's driving abilities, very much so. There have been drivers like Gilles who all concede was blindingly fast but not the complete package, drivers like Lauda and Brabham who had a way of winning with the required amount of pace to do the job, drivers like Senna who were occasionally almost on another level. Michael's success IMO came from a combination of speed, racecraft, mastering difficult conditions and several others.

Clearly you are unhappy to read anything but eulogies on the man and get upset when another view emerges. I will leave you to your own fanship.

Not wanting to look like I'm picking on you but...
You want to retract that statement?

When Clark started racing the rear engine layout was in it's infancy and the 1.5 litre engine restriction in place. The monocoque brought huge changes in stiffness and lightness to the equation. The 3 litre engines and particularly the Cosworth engine brought speeds close to today's top speeds. Tyres changed from little more than road car sizes to 15 inch wide rollers. These were just some of the visible differences and drivers simply got on with adapting to TOTALLY different styles of driving.

Also on the Clark theme - he was denied titles in 62 and 64 by appalling reliability winning more races than anyone, in fact winning almost any time the car didn't let him down. He won a GP with the ridiculously cumbersome H16 BRM engine in 1966, he made up a one lap deficit on the leaders at Monza, he drove against more World Champions in his time including putting a WDC teammate in the shade in 67.

Of course technical ability was still a requirement during this era even if there were not the complexities of today's scene. His ability was said by his peers to be of a natural source and he could drive anything quicker than anyone, anywhere, in his time. His ability to adapt to the banked ovals and Indy against some of the all-time US greats like Parnelli, Foyt and co and be immediately competitive is astounding if you just stop and think about how difficult this would be.

Kinda makes adapting to the 2010 Mercedes look like a stroll in the park.... IMO of course.

You say it yourself, it's an opinion.

And there it is, I state facts often with figures, examples and results against your self confessed opinion so you simply turn to the "your a fanboy" defense.

Feel free to start a Clark Fanboy thread hypocrite, I'll be there.

Non of my business but Calling him hypocrite is uncalled for

He stated his opinión and was honesto enough to admit to it being his opinión, contrast that to your egotistical view that all you write aré facts which i hace read and aré nothing of The sort

So you are also one of the guys here in this forum who dislike Schumacher so much that you are not objective. So in your opinion how long it will take Schumacher to get completly acuanted with new tires , cars and rules after three years in retirement?

Who said it that Schumacher will need only a few races to get back to him old self again Lauda, Coulthard who else did Schumacher, Ross or even Norbert said it they did not, because they do not know how long it will take. There is a possibility that he will never achieve his old form in F1 racing. Niki Lauda returned to racing in completely different period were there were no such great changes in rules or cars when he left the field. Coulthard on the other hand did not come back after retirement so he is speculating like you do. Schumacher has one major problem and that are qualifications in comparison to Rosberg his racing speed is similar to Rosberg racing speed. There were few races when Schumacher was better than Rosberg. Here are the facts: Rosberg is better driver than Schumacher this year, Schumacher did not drive in any racing series for whole three years, Rosberg on the other hand did, Rosberg has problems with starts in races and Schumacher with qualification, there is a major flaw in the design of the Mercedes car.

Hehe...It is not beyond the realms of possibility that somebody of your intelligence can acknowledge facts and statistics need context in order to coney any meaningful information? Otherwise we may as well all go home and admit Rosberg must be the greatest driver F1 has ever known. ;-)

Do you think that Schumacher is in the same form as he was when he retired? Schumacher achived more in F1 than Rosber ever will. Do you think that Rosberg will become another legend in F1 racing?

But factually speaking Rosberg can only be judged on what tasks he has been given. He wasn't around when M Schumacher had the best machinery during the 90s and 00s. He can only be judged on what is available for him to do. Standards of cars fall into the category of variables so the thing that every driver must aim to do is to beat your teammate first. Rosberg has DOUBLE the points of M Schumacher and has out qualified m Schumacher by TRIPLE. Therefore, factually speaking as your ilk insist upon, Rosberg is a better driver than M Schumacher period. Standards have changed, what was good enough yesterday is evidently not good enough today - that's not even taking into consideration the preferential treatment M Schumacher received first time around.

As you say we don't know what tasks(targets) they both have been given? Or maybe you have inside information, if not, anything you said don't have much meaning. There is a facts and there is interpretations(speculations) of the facts. We all can count to 100 or even more in good days.

Excuses excuses excuses ;-)

What were Verstappens, Herberts Irvines tasks etc?

;-)