Brundle's commentary quotes are expressions, not scientific analysis. They're not even correct sometimes.

Watch any pole lap and you will quite often see them miss the apex on one or more corners, usually by having taken in incredible amounts of entry speed. Missing an apex means you have to turn the wheel more meaning a tighter radius and less speed.

what change of mind?

He said in the video clip we saw that had testing still been as much as before he couldn't have done it - he would have burnt out. He never mentioned anything about lack of testing being a hinderance to him

you seem a little confused.

slowly

he's glad there is no testing as it would burn him out - he said that clearly

that in no way implys that testing isn't helpful...as he says in his quote you posted

two totally different conversations - that only relate to each other because the word "testing" was involved

No where did he change his mind - one can understand that something could hurt them, but still be glad that it is no longer a personal problem

... he knows that, he knows he has to find another way to improve.

no sit back and digest - no need to reply as I'm sure youw ill finally get the difference

WTF is this?! Another piece on MS "genius", based on false grounds.
In qualifying at Silverstone , Rubens was faster than Michael 5 times out of 6...

Not easy, no track is easy (and the supposed 'mickey mouse' circuits are very hard too).. but not Spa or Suzuka either. Monza is much more of a challenge for engineers than drivers, which is a good thing sometimes.

Tell that to Lewis.

Funny you mention Suzuka, a place where he lost two WDC to Mika and Nando and doesn't have a great palmares.

Tell that to Lewis.

Funny you mention Suzuka, a place where he lost two WDC to Mika and Nando and doesn't have a great palmares.

Tell that to Lewis.

Funny you mention Suzuka, a place where he lost two WDC to Mika and Nando and doesn't have a great palmares.

Schumacher's record at Suzuka

Wins: 6
Podiums: 9

Won the championship there in 2000 and 2003.

Not a bad record all in all.

Michael has a superb record at Suzuka..

Lewis goes well almost everywhere.. he will be as good as Michael at his best if he can ever sort his head out.

Hamilton is already better than "michael" ever was.

Top F1 drivers can easily adept to different cars.

For example. Lewis in his rookie season almost won the WDC in a understeerign car, and in his 2nd year he became WDC in a oversteering car. So it doesn't really have an impact on top drivers.

The main difference between now and then is

Ferrari 2004 = computer driven cars, Bridgestone specifically designed for Ferrari, unlimited testing + biggest budget in F1, Rory Byrne
Mercedes 2010 = same tyres for everybody, ban on testing, no Rory Byrne, less computers.

MS simply enjoyed a massive car advantage over everybody while being #1 driver in the team, and Ferrari was simply the best team around with their Bridgestone tyres and car.

edit; So MS will never dominate F1 like he did.

That said, the great drivers managed very different cars. Fangio and Moss could cope with understeer and oversteer, although both preferred oversteer. 'Senna's driving style did not exist' (Berger; in the sense that he would adapt to the car), and Alonso totally modified his driving coming out of Renault (to McLaren and then to Ferrari).

Nonsense, Lewis Hamilton has just as much if not more of an agressive "trowing style" as Schumacher, even drifting at times, quite similar to what you can call Karting style and he is the most successful current F1 driver. As well as Vettel who also has an agressive "Karting" driving style.

Gentleman, I think is not smart to create particular theories, while the facts are fairly simply. No driver will dominate forever, no sportsman will be able to ride on his peak peromance forever is just not natural. All the greats in every sports have a curve of performance and that includes, Schumacher, Federer, Ronaldo, Tyson, Woods... as great as a sportsman can be he is not going to maintain it forever without catching up to them. The wealth just doesn`t run foerever.

And there are a bunch of factors that combined now doesn't make possible or Schumacher to just go back to the ways of the past. The most of which is the simple evolution of the sport as whole , which is constantly evolving, all the current drivers now grew up watching Schumacher and other greats, studying them integrating their styles, as it happen with the first driver to introduce the tecnhic of breaking the latest point, than riding the apex of the curves etc..

Drivers today have never been as professionals and the competetition to get to F1 has never being greater. To think that schuamcher could just climb back onboard and make time stop to go back to the good old days. I think Schumacher is still a good driver and problably could find his groove and become a great driver and still have fun and get nice results, but the sport has evolved as whole human and machine... and that combines to him not being at the peak of his condition anymore. Or even if he did ride at his peak condition today, it does not translate do dominate performance anymore due to the natural evolution of the sport.

Hamilton is already better than "michael" ever was.

Why do people act like Schumacher's career only consisted of the 2004 or 2002 season? For one, I think Schumacher was at his best between 1995 and 2000.

Based on what exactly? 4 seasons, 14 wins, 1 WDC, numerous silly mistakes, banging a Pussycat Doll?

I know it's Ramadan but I really shouldn't feed the troll.;)

I know it's Ramadan but I really shouldn't feed the troll.;)

then don't....because he keeps coming back for more food and we get too much of that type of posting from him

Hamilton has never had such a dominant car MS had for most of his career nor has he had Jacques Villeneuve and Damon Hill as his biggest rivals for big parts of his career.
I have no doubts that if you put MS and Hamilton is a car like F2002 and let them compete over a season, Hamilton would destroy schumacher by the end.

Tell that to Lewis.

Funny you mention Suzuka, a place where he lost two WDC to Mika and Nando and doesn't have a great palmares.

It is funny how anyone who doesnt subscribe to the "schumacher is best ever" myth and dares to say there might be better drivers than him around, is at once labelled a troll.

It is funny how anyone who doesnt subscribe to the "schumacher is best ever" myth and dares to say there might be better drivers than him around, is at once labelled a troll.

Hamilton has never had such a dominant car MS had for most of his career nor has he had Jacques Villeneuve and Damon Hill as his biggest rivals for big parts of his career.
I have no doubts that if you put MS and Hamilton is a car like F2002 and let them compete over a season, Hamilton would destroy schumacher by the end.

For what it's worth I agree with you. If he had this caliber of cars and drivers around him in the 90s and 00s, and still pulled 7 championships I'd sing a different story.

Nonsense, Lewis Hamilton has just as much if not more of an agressive "trowing style" as Schumacher, even drifting at times, quite similar to what you can call Karting style and he is the most successful current F1 driver. As well as Vettel who also has an agressive "Karting" driving style.

It's not Schumacher's fault he had 'weak' competition; I hardly call Hill, Villeneuve or Hakkinen, Alonso, Raikonnen and Montoya 'weak'. Infact, I think all those drivers would fare pretty well even in 2010.

And of course they are called weak because? What is the thing that causes people to call them weak competition?

Schumacher had fairly weak competition after Imola -94 to ~1998
After 2000, in 2001 and to 2006 he had a superior car with exclusive
#1 status. His competitors wasn´t weak, but they didn´t have the machinery
or tires to fight with him.
If we compair to 2010 when all drivers have the same tires and many teams have
the same engines, it´s a competly different challenge compaired to
lets say 2002 when Schumacher had the best car, best engine (most reliable) and best
tires. On top of that, he had no challenge from his teammate, it´s an incredible
situation really! He could be the only driver on the grid actually, almost the same..

Just compair when Sutil passed the works team Mercedes at Spa (Schumacher), with the same engine.
That would be unreal in early 2000. Remember Kimi just let Schumacher through at Austria 2001.

Formula 1 2010 is completly different now, to the better

2005 - you'd have to be very drunk or a complete lunatic to say the F2005 was the best

Oh how I wish we could see how the F2005 would of finished in the season had it been on Michelins that year. And no USGP debacle. I'm sure it would of fared much better. The Bridgestones that year were kinda awful to say the least, cept at the USGP haha!

The F2005 was tailored for the Bridgestone tyres, its suspension geometry, distribution, weight bias, brakes etc were all set up to work in concurrence with the Bridgestone tyres. The Michelin tyres would have ruined that balance and probably made it slower than it already was.

If the 2010 Mclaren used the Red Bull's front wing and rear diffuser, it would be a slower car.

Schumacher had fairly weak competition after Imola -94 to ~1998
After 2000, in 2001 and to 2006 he had a superior car with exclusive
#1 status. His competitors wasn´t weak, but they didn´t have the machinery
or tires to fight with him.
If we compair to 2010 when all drivers have the same tires and many teams have
the same engines, it´s a competly different challenge compaired to
lets say 2002 when Schumacher had the best car, best engine (most reliable) and best
tires. On top of that, he had no challenge from his teammate, it´s an incredible
situation really! He could be the only driver on the grid actually, almost the same..

Just compair when Sutil passed the works team Mercedes at Spa (Schumacher), with the same engine.
That would be unreal in early 2000. Remember Kimi just let Schumacher through at Austria 2001.

Formula 1 2010 is completly different now, to the better

How can I prove a point of view and an opinion?

My opinion is just that, and opinion, it's not fact. It is a well educated opinion based on years of study, personal experience and data, and you can agree, desagree, accept it, or dismiss it as you like. I don't presume to change how you think. I'm not out to prove anything to anyone, I merely stated my opnion, I wouldn't be as arrogant as to believe my opinion is law and order and would have to be accepted by everyone.

You should just chill buddy, really.

You say 'weak' competition, but the cars he was up against were some of the best of their generation. The Williams was formidable and Michael kept with up with them and McLaren haven't made a car as good and dominant as the 98/99 McLarens were. In 2000 the paddock viewed the McLaren as the better chassis as it didn't wear its tyres as much as the Ferrari and it had the Aluminium Beryllium engine. He took 2 championships to the wire when in reality he shouldn't of been able to.

And MS should write a big thank you note to Mercedes because they gave MS that title in 2000. 3 easy race wins were stolen from Mika due to that unreliable Mercedes engine.

Oh how I wish we could see how the F2005 would of finished in the season had it been on Michelins that year. And no USGP debacle. I'm sure it would of fared much better. The Bridgestones that year were kinda awful to say the least, cept at the USGP haha!

Bridgestone were specifically designed for Ferrari. And it's Ferrari their own fault they had bad tyres by forcing everybody to run Michelin. Bridgestone said during 2005 that the problem was not just the tyres, but also the car. So not sure if they would win on Michelins.

The what if includes if Ferrari were made for Michelins that year you know? What's so hard to understand about this...

Impossible. The Michelin were made for Renault in the end. If Ferrari were on Michelins, they wouldn't have gotten tyres designed for their car.

I think Michelin would have given them plenty of support...

often?
finished ahead of his team mate in 1993, 1998, 2000, 2001,2002,2004,2005,2006

1994 DQ
1995 accident
1996 hydraulics
1997 wheel

lost to his team mate in 1992,2003,2010
so he "won" 8 times, had 4 times terminal failures and lost 3 times
yet he was often beaten?

But he didn't.

He doesn't have a time machine. Nor can you change the world around you.


It's like saying 'well if Mike Tyson was around in the 1970's, he wouldn't be so great'. One can't help the circumstances they are dealt with. You make your destiny with the cards you have been dealt with.

It's not Schumacher's fault he had 'weak' competition; I hardly call Hill, Villeneuve or Hakkinen, Alonso, Raikonnen and Montoya 'weak'. Infact, I think all those drivers would fare pretty well even in 2010.

You're misleading the other forumers (esp the new ones) when you say that Schumacher had the best car from 2001-2006.

You say 'weak' competition, but the cars he was up against were some of the best of their generation. The Williams was formidable and Michael kept with up with them and McLaren haven't made a car as good and dominant as the 98/99 McLarens were. In 2000 the paddock viewed the McLaren as the better chassis as it didn't wear its tyres as much as the Ferrari and it had the Aluminium Beryllium engine. He took 2 championships to the wire when in reality he shouldn't of been able to.

Misleading?! Take away 2005 and he had the best car all of those years.
You´re saying it yourself too...