FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[McLaren Fan]

I should like to change what I hastily said earlier. Semantically, a very good chance is not the same as a guarantee. More formally spelling things out, Ferrari only needed a couple of key people to bring success to the team: a good driver, who they got in Schumacher; a good team principle, who they got in Brawn; and a good designer, who they got in Byrne. All of the infrastructure, finance and other personnel were all in place.

[EwanM]

Erm this may sound stupid, but how much of the likes of Brawn and Byrne etc, coming to Ferrari was due to the fact Schumacher was driving for them?
Therefore he must take some responsibility for the resurgence of the Scuderia?

[McLaren Fan]

Erm this may sound stupid, but how much of the likes of Brawn and Byrne etc, coming to Ferrari was due to the fact Schumacher was driving for them?
Therefore he must take some responsibility for the resurgence of the Scuderia?

Rory Byrne and John Barnard were both approached by Ferrari. The latter said he wasn't interested but Byrne jumped ship. Brawn, though, came because he worked well with Schumacher. Still, I don't see the big deal about that.

[EwanM]

Erm this may sound stupid, but how much of the likes of Brawn and Byrne etc, coming to Ferrari was due to the fact Schumacher was driving for them?
Therefore he must take some responsibility for the resurgence of the Scuderia?

Rory Byrne and John Barnard were both approached by Ferrari. The latter said he wasn't interested but Byrne jumped ship. Brawn, though, came because he worked well with Schumacher. Still, I don't see the big deal about that.

I dno, I think Schumacher has a big part to play in Ferrari's return - but u need to look backwards to probably Jean Todt beng appointed from the Peugoet sportscar team.

[McLaren Fan]

Erm this may sound stupid, but how much of the likes of Brawn and Byrne etc, coming to Ferrari was due to the fact Schumacher was driving for them?
Therefore he must take some responsibility for the resurgence of the Scuderia?

Rory Byrne and John Barnard were both approached by Ferrari. The latter said he wasn't interested but Byrne jumped ship. Brawn, though, came because he worked well with Schumacher. Still, I don't see the big deal about that.

I dno, I think Schumacher has a big part to play in Ferrari's return - but u need to look backwards to probably Jean Todt beng appointed from the Peugoet sportscar team.

Like I said in an earlier post, it was di Montezemolo who got the ball rolling. He pumped a lot of money into Ferrari and hired Lauda as some kind of adviser. A few years later, Todt was invited to the party. For me, this was the key move. He took no prisoners and stopped all the in-fighting in Ferrari, thus getting Ferrari to a position where they had real potential to become a force to be reckoned with.

[scotty]

I wouldn't want a bank sponsoring me at the moment...!!

Oh, I would

Eh? Why is that? If it was a Chinese bank then yeah, but given what has happened to a lot of western-based banks lately...

[darwin dali]

I wouldn't want a bank sponsoring me at the moment...!!

Oh, I would

Eh? Why is that? If it was a Chinese bank then yeah, but given what has happened to a lot of western-based banks lately...

They still have WAY more money then me (just think all the billions of $$$ for the bailout), so I wouldn't mind being sponsored by them

[racechick]

And that's another reason why MS was the greatest ever: he went to Ferrari when they were shi!e and built up the team to reap the rewards. So, Mr. Sour Grapes Frog Mouth, what have you contributed to F1 to now start a smear campaign against MS, eh?

Please stop citing this myth about Schumacher turning Ferrari into a great team. Schumacher was one part of a fairly big equation. Luca di Montezemolo decided to get Ferrari back on track, so pumped a lot of extra money into the team. Jean Todt was hired to iron out the team's political tensions and get it organised. Then, come 1995/6, apart from Schumacher, Ferrari poached Rory Byrne, who designed some quick if not exactly innovative cars, and Ross Brawn, who knows how to get a team into shape and make some excellent strategy calls.

The fact remains, he came to Ferrari when they performed very poorly and there was no guarantee for a turn around. MS galvanized the team, made it his own and delivered for them to turn the team around and dominate F1 for a decade. Something no other driver has ever achieved.

It's funny you should say there was no guarantee for a turn around, for Schumacher himself said the reason he came to the team was because there was a very good chance of it improving, i.e. di Montezemolo and Todt meant business.

Schumacher was a very, very good driver and would certainly have won world championships, but he is not as great, glorious and ontipotent as his barmy army of fans would have us all believe.

A very good chance is not a guarantee. Without him, Ferrari would have had to kiss goodbye any chance of winning those titles. EI and RB were no championship material.
Pot calling a kettle black here, aren't we? This (not as great, glorious, etc.) coming from you, one of the most ardent Senna glorifiers on here?

Senna really was great. He could do things that were impossible (And Lewis will). Michael did not have that extra little bit, that thing that comes from pure talent alone. Yes he was excellent, yes he got records but....and always with him there is a but.

[Denthúl]

And that's another reason why MS was the greatest ever: he went to Ferrari when they were shi!e and built up the team to reap the rewards. So, Mr. Sour Grapes Frog Mouth, what have you contributed to F1 to now start a smear campaign against MS, eh?

Please stop citing this myth about Schumacher turning Ferrari into a great team. Schumacher was one part of a fairly big equation. Luca di Montezemolo decided to get Ferrari back on track, so pumped a lot of extra money into the team. Jean Todt was hired to iron out the team's political tensions and get it organised. Then, come 1995/6, apart from Schumacher, Ferrari poached Rory Byrne, who designed some quick if not exactly innovative cars, and Ross Brawn, who knows how to get a team into shape and make some excellent strategy calls.

The fact remains, he came to Ferrari when they performed very poorly and there was no guarantee for a turn around. MS galvanized the team, made it his own and delivered for them to turn the team around and dominate F1 for a decade. Something no other driver has ever achieved.

It's funny you should say there was no guarantee for a turn around, for Schumacher himself said the reason he came to the team was because there was a very good chance of it improving, i.e. di Montezemolo and Todt meant business.

Schumacher was a very, very good driver and would certainly have won world championships, but he is not as great, glorious and ontipotent as his barmy army of fans would have us all believe.

A very good chance is not a guarantee. Without him, Ferrari would have had to kiss goodbye any chance of winning those titles. EI and RB were no championship material.
Pot calling a kettle black here, aren't we? This (not as great, glorious, etc.) coming from you, one of the most ardent Senna glorifiers on here?

Senna really was great. He could do things that were impossible (And Lewis will). Michael did not have that extra little bit, that thing that comes from pure talent alone. Yes he was excellent, yes he got records but....and always with him there is a but.

That's funny, I've seen Schumacher do a lot of things that put him in that extra special category. Sure, he pulled some dirty tricks, but then a lot of the best drivers have done that, have they not? I don't condone the things he did, but he's not alone.

[racechick]

And that's another reason why MS was the greatest ever: he went to Ferrari when they were shi!e and built up the team to reap the rewards. So, Mr. Sour Grapes Frog Mouth, what have you contributed to F1 to now start a smear campaign against MS, eh?

Please stop citing this myth about Schumacher turning Ferrari into a great team. Schumacher was one part of a fairly big equation. Luca di Montezemolo decided to get Ferrari back on track, so pumped a lot of extra money into the team. Jean Todt was hired to iron out the team's political tensions and get it organised. Then, come 1995/6, apart from Schumacher, Ferrari poached Rory Byrne, who designed some quick if not exactly innovative cars, and Ross Brawn, who knows how to get a team into shape and make some excellent strategy calls.

The fact remains, he came to Ferrari when they performed very poorly and there was no guarantee for a turn around. MS galvanized the team, made it his own and delivered for them to turn the team around and dominate F1 for a decade. Something no other driver has ever achieved.

It's funny you should say there was no guarantee for a turn around, for Schumacher himself said the reason he came to the team was because there was a very good chance of it improving, i.e. di Montezemolo and Todt meant business.

Schumacher was a very, very good driver and would certainly have won world championships, but he is not as great, glorious and ontipotent as his barmy army of fans would have us all believe.

A very good chance is not a guarantee. Without him, Ferrari would have had to kiss goodbye any chance of winning those titles. EI and RB were no championship material.
Pot calling a kettle black here, aren't we? This (not as great, glorious, etc.) coming from you, one of the most ardent Senna glorifiers on here?

Senna really was great. He could do things that were impossible (And Lewis will). Michael did not have that extra little bit, that thing that comes from pure talent alone. Yes he was excellent, yes he got records but....and always with him there is a but.

That's funny, I've seen Schumacher do a lot of things that put him in that extra special category. Sure, he pulled some dirty tricks, but then a lot of the best drivers have done that, have they not? I don't condone the things he did, but he's not alone.

Maybe I have an unfair down on him.I know he was extremely good, worked really hard for what he got, and made situations work for him and I should respect that but I cant help respecting pure talent more; and I think Ayrton had more of that and I think Lewis has more of it too.

[bud]

And that's another reason why MS was the greatest ever: he went to Ferrari when they were shi!e and built up the team to reap the rewards. So, Mr. Sour Grapes Frog Mouth, what have you contributed to F1 to now start a smear campaign against MS, eh?

DD the Schumi apostle, he just took the same key personnel that surrounded his success at Benetton with him to Ferrari!

[darwin dali]

And that's another reason why MS was the greatest ever: he went to Ferrari when they were shi!e and built up the team to reap the rewards. So, Mr. Sour Grapes Frog Mouth, what have you contributed to F1 to now start a smear campaign against MS, eh?

DD the Schumi apostle, he just took the same key personnel that surrounded his success at Benetton with him to Ferrari!

He had to deliver the performance to dominate

[Jabberwocky]

do you think all the greats Senna/Schumacher* etc always did dodgy things because what made them so good was not that they where very talented but that they where very focused and winning was everything. Is that the difference between the good and the great?

*Lewis may be added to this list in a few years but only time will tell

[racechick]

do you think all the greats Senna/Schumacher* etc always did dodgy things because what made them so good was not that they where very talented but that they where very focused and winning was everything. Is that the difference between the good and the great?

*Lewis may be added to this list in a few years but only time will tell

The very greats. talented first focused second. But both is best of course
. For me talented is better than focused. But im funny like that

[SENNA71]

let's see if Formula 1 and/or Santander will still exist in 2010...