FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[AKR]

excuse me miss you were the one comparing Hamilton to Schumacher.

i have no idols, only jebus

looks like im organising a pallet of napkins now, ill fork out the postage cost dont worry!

Hamilton does my head in.......... i know I don't know him personally but when F1 is mentioned his name just pops into my head all the time.......I am cursed by this guy....... I need a cure fast......... Kimi beat the guy and win another title and I'll be cured. *LOL*

[texasmr2]

Your probably right there Tex. Tex, hang on I know your name as well, Gregg you're the best moderator I've ever known.

Thank's Kiki I appreciate that . As I had mentioned before since we all spend so much online time together the personal touch of knowing or using one's given name is nice to hear sometime's but that's my opinion.

Gregg

[texasmr2]

Hamilton does my head in.......... i know I don't know him personally but when F1 is mentioned his name just pops into my head all the time.......I am cursed by this guy....... I need a cure fast......... Kimi beat the guy and win another title and I'll be cured. *LOL*

One must admit though, no matter what team they support, that Lewis has alot of skill and it's nice to have another potential champion in the mix regardless of the team they drive for. I alway's want Ferrari to win but if a driver for another team has 'hit the setup jackpot' then so be it. That to me is what motorsport's in general is about, the best driver/car for that day.

[darwin dali]

excuse me miss you were the one comparing Hamilton to Schumacher.

i have no idols, only jebus

looks like im organising a pallet of napkins now, ill fork out the postage cost dont worry!

Hamilton does my head in.......... i know I don't know him personally but when F1 is mentioned his name just pops into my head all the time.......I am cursed by this guy....... I need a cure fast......... Kimi beat the guy and win another title and I'll be cured. *LOL*

This should cure you:

Jerry & Scott

[deMuRe]

And no, plenty couldn't have done it in that car, there have been era's with other teams where the car has been strong, nobody dominated like Schumacher did.

Very true as Coulthard, Berger, Montoya or Kimi never achieved what was expected of them at McLaren. It's a very touchy subject to say the least yet that's what weed's out the true champion's from the rest of the driver's.

its easy to dominate in the dominant car when your team mate isnt up to the dominant drivers abilities

Unlike for example Senna, Schumacher never had to contend with a world champion team mate in his peak in a a title fight.

and i say again, plenty could have in that car

Senna always wanted the best car, Schumacher always made the car he was in the best... You are comparing apples and oranges...

[deMuRe]

The car was tailored to MS's particular driving style. That's why he dominated and that's why his number two drivers were rarely able to challenge him and nobody else could have done what he did in that car.

Yes that's very true, that's why they got rid of Barnard, Schumacher kept asking for a particular kind of car and John kept designing a neutral car...

That also explaines Mika's dominance over DC, DC likes a car with push, Mika liked a car with lots of understeer, Adrian Newey designed the car around Mika. I even remember DC saying, when Mika left, "Finally I'll have a car designed for my style of driving." So what happens? They keep designing pointy cars to suit the Finnish driving style...

Heh, poor DC...

[McLaren Fan]

Yes that's very true, that's why they got rid of Barnard, Schumacher kept asking for a particular kind of car and John kept designing a neutral car...

That also explaines Mika's dominance over DC, DC likes a car with push, Mika liked a car with lots of understeer, Adrian Newey designed the car around Mika. I even remember DC saying, when Mika left, "Finally I'll have a car designed for my style of driving." So what happens? They keep designing pointy cars to suit the Finnish driving style...

Heh, poor DC...

More cheap scoring from you. That argument has countered numerous times on this forum, but you just insist on flagging it up again in order to trick people who were not registered to the forum when it was discussed or those who cannot remember what was said.

Senna always wanted the best car, Schumacher always made the car he was in the best... You are comparing apples and oranges...

How exactly did Schumacher make the car he was in the best? Schumacher was afforded privileges at Ferrari that no other driver in history was offered. I don't recall Ron Dennis sitting down with Senna in 1987 and saying, "Hey, Ayrton, when you come to the team next year, we'll allow you to appoint a completely new technical team, from the mechanics up, with no expenses spared." Ferrari did allow Schumacher to do that. So, Schumacher and Ferrari then poached other team's best staff, wooing them in with big promises and larger salaries than what they were already on. It's no wonder Benetton went from winners to w**kers in the space of a few seasons. Luca di Montezemolo's cash from FIAT's coffers turned Ferrari around. Hell, even I could turn a team around within a few seasons with that approach.

[deMuRe]

Yes that's very true, that's why they got rid of Barnard, Schumacher kept asking for a particular kind of car and John kept designing a neutral car...

That also explaines Mika's dominance over DC, DC likes a car with push, Mika liked a car with lots of understeer, Adrian Newey designed the car around Mika. I even remember DC saying, when Mika left, "Finally I'll have a car designed for my style of driving." So what happens? They keep designing pointy cars to suit the Finnish driving style...

Heh, poor DC...

More cheap scoring from you. That argument has countered numerous times on this forum, but you just insist on flagging it up again in order to trick people who were not registered to the forum when it was discussed or those who cannot remember what was said.

Senna always wanted the best car, Schumacher always made the car he was in the best... You are comparing apples and oranges...

How exactly did Schumacher make the car he was in the best? Schumacher was afforded privileges at Ferrari that no other driver in history was offered. I don't recall Ron Dennis sitting down with Senna in 1987 and saying, "Hey, Ayrton, when you come to the team next year, we'll allow you to appoint a completely new technical team, from the mechanics up, with no expenses spared." Ferrari did allow Schumacher to do that. So, Schumacher and Ferrari then poached other team's best staff, wooing them in with big promises and larger salaries than what they were already on. It's no wonder Benetton went from winners to w**kers in the space of a few seasons. Luca di Montezemolo's cash from FIAT's coffers turned Ferrari around. Hell, even I could turn a team around within a few seasons with that approach.

McLaren Fan you've been brainwashed. Those were John Barnards words, from his own mouth

Go get yourself a copy of 'Michael Schumacher: The Whole Story', Christopher Hilton interviewed John and was quoted verbatim.

I'm sorry McLaren Fan but you are not the sole source of information on this earth...

You McLunker fanboys keep going on about how Michael Schumacher walked into Ferrari and it was already the best car on earth... He was poached from Jordan because he was brilliant. Ferrari through a blank cheque at him because they knew they were going to get returns. Go ask Toyota what throwing money at F1 gives you if you don't have the right people in place.

I'll go back to my original statement, Senna always wanted the best car, Schumacher always made the cars he was in the best... It doesn't matter how Schumacher did it, just looked at how Bennetton performed pre Schumacher, same with Ferrari...

Sorry fellas, I know the truth hurts...

[AKR]

Actually I do remember how badly Senna wanted to go to Willians from McLaren as Williams at the time had the best car. This was true about Senna. I remember when Mansell was at Williams who won in 1992 had not decided weather he would leave Williams in 1993 when Alian Prost was on the verge of joining. I remember Senna badly wanting to go but couldn't because they already had Mansell and Prost for 1993. I remember 2 things. I remember Senna offering Frank Williams that he would be willing to drive for nothing if he got a third car. I also remember (This was years later though as I couldn't speak English back in 1992) seeing an Autosport (I think that was the name of the magazine had it had a similar name to the Italian car magazine "Auto Sprint") British magazine from 1992 with the heading "3 into 2 wont go" referring that no way could Williams have a 3rd car/driver which would of been Senna. And then what happened. Mansell decided to retire but too late for Senna to take the spot as Williams found another driver and also Senna commited another year to McLaren. Then Prost retires from Williams after winning the title in 1993 and Senna finally got to drive for Williams still the best car in 1994..........although after what happend at Imola one would wish he never got to drive for them.

[McLaren Fan]

McLaren Fan you've been brainwashed. Those were John Barnards words, from his own mouth

I've never read or heard John Barnard's words. That's my own analysis.

You McLunker fanboys keep going on about how Michael Schumacher walked into Ferrari and it was already the best car on earth...

You've merged two issues. McLaren (a team) and Schumacher (a driver) are completely separate issues. It is possible to like McLaren and Schumacher simultaneously. In the same vein, I know some McLaren fans who preferred Prost to Senna, which again proves that there is not an Senna-McLaren alliance against Schumacher and Ferrari.

Go ask Toyota what throwing money at F1 gives you if you don't have the right people in place.

Toyota is a separate issue. You are again disingenuously merging two different topics. Toyota's situation is different for several reasons, for instance, the team's personal and the management in Japan.

It doesn't matter how Schumacher did it, just looked at how Bennetton performed pre Schumacher, same with Ferrari...

You say 'it doesn't matter how he did it' (my italics). That's the crux of the matter. He was not the only one who did it!

[bud]

i love how manure throws the brainwashed word at you Chris yet where does he get his wisdom from?the almighty son of god.... Michael Schumacher

[deMuRe]

Actually I do remember how badly Senna wanted to go to Willians from McLaren as Williams at the time had the best car. This was true about Senna. I remember when Mansell was at Williams who won in 1992 had not decided weather he would leave Williams in 1993 when Alian Prost was on the verge of joining. I remember Senna badly wanting to go but couldn't because they already had Mansell and Prost for 1993. I remember 2 things. I remember Senna offering Frank Williams that he would be willing to drive for nothing if he got a third car. I also remember (This was years later though as I couldn't speak English back in 1992) seeing an Autosport (I think that was the name of the magazine had it had a similar name to the Italian car magazine "Auto Sprint") British magazine from 1992 with the heading "3 into 2 wont go" referring that no way could Williams have a 3rd car/driver which would of been Senna. And then what happened. Mansell decided to retire but too late for Senna to take the spot as Williams found another driver and also Senna commited another year to McLaren. Then Prost retires from Williams after winning the title in 1993 and Senna finally got to drive for Williams still the best car in 1994..........although after what happend at Imola one would wish he never got to drive for them.

Thank you AKR

[deMuRe]

McLaren Fan you've been brainwashed. Those were John Barnards words, from his own mouth

I've never read or heard John Barnard's words. That's my own analysis.

John himself said he got the sack because he ignored Michael's requests for a specific type of car. John's reasoning was as along as he provided Schumacher with a Neutral car, built to the fastest spec John knew how, it should be the quickest solution overall.

You McLunker fanboys keep going on about how Michael Schumacher walked into Ferrari and it was already the best car on earth...

You've merged two issues. McLaren (a team) and Schumacher (a driver) are completely separate issues. It is possible to like McLaren and Schumacher simultaneously. In the same vein, I know some McLaren fans who preferred Prost to Senna, which again proves that there is not an Senna-McLaren alliance against Schumacher and Ferrari.

I have read repeatedly on this forum that Schumacher was only quick because he had a quick car. I'm not taking everything away from Ferrari, I'm just saying it was a combination of a lot of things to string together the most successful period in F1 history for any team. A couple of those factors was Schumachers speed and committment to working hard at everything. Testing, fitness, technical feedback etc...

Go ask Toyota what throwing money at F1 gives you if you don't have the right people in place.

Toyota is a separate issue. You are again disingenuously merging two different topics. Toyota's situation is different for several reasons, for instance, the team's personal and the management in Japan.

Yes but you said "I could run a team with all that money"... Having a big budget doesn't mean you will be fast.

It doesn't matter how Schumacher did it, just looked at how Bennetton performed pre Schumacher, same with Ferrari...

You say 'it doesn't matter how he did it' (my italics). That's the crux of the matter. He was not the only one who did it!

I think you're agreeing with me there

I've totally screwed up the quote function...

[madbrad]

One thing about pitlane time is that while they do tell you the time that they are off the track, i.e. the time lost entering, driving slowly, servicing, speeding up, leaving the pitlane, they don't seem to subtract the time it takes a race speed car to traverse the track length between the entrance and exit of the pit. The act like you lose all that time and re enter the track at the same point you left it. You have covered some ground and as far as I can tell they forget that. They're quick to tell us that it's not just the pitstop time to consider, because they think we're stupid and don't know that, but if they forget the track length, their info is flawed and useless.