Emmcee

Could Have Schumi Had 2 More?

8 posts in this topic

This question has always bugged me and is irelivant but never the less. Do you think Schumacher would have won the 99 title if he didnt break his leg? Or would have Mika still taken it? Would have Schumi been champion in 2006 if it wasn't for that spectacular engine failure he had while leading the Japanese gp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question has always bugged me and is irelivant but never the less. Do you think Schumacher would have won the 99 title if he didnt break his leg? Or would have Mika still taken it?

Could've been close, but I think Mika would've snapped it. Mika lead the WDC before Schumi's accident, and in the end, Irvine was close because he actually drove very well and because Mika had a couple of retirements as well. Just took a look at the 1999 season results, and, had Schumi been able to race in the six events he missed, he needed higher points average in those races than he managed in the races he took part in, in order to win WDC. I think Mika would've taken it regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could've been close, but I think Mika would've snapped it. Mika lead the WDC before Schumi's accident, and in the end, Irvine was close because he actually drove very well and because Mika had a couple of retirements as well. Just took a look at the 1999 season results, and, had Schumi been able to race in the six events he missed, he needed higher points average in those races than he managed in the races he took part in, in order to win WDC. I think Mika would've taken it regardless.

Good point,

What about 2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that The Swerve ran Mika very close, means that Michael may have won it in '99.

2006 was not just about the Japan engine failure. Alonso had misfortunes too. In the end, he was a deserved winner. If 2005 was more about Ferrari's inability to make the tyres work, then '06 left me in no doubt about his edge over Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that The Swerve ran Mika very close, means that Michael may have won it in '99.

2006 was not just about the Japan engine failure. Alonso had misfortunes too. In the end, he was a deserved winner. If 2005 was more about Ferrari's inability to make the tyres work, then '06 left me in no doubt about his edge over Michael.

Iam aware fernando had issues to but Michael closed back a significant gap in the points to where I Beleive was only 2 points behind fernando when that failure struck in Japan, so if michael won wich he most likley would have, him and alonso would have been tied on points going into the last race,me personally have always thought 2006 was taken from him but 1999 not do sure.

Edited by WebRic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only comment on 2006: the myth that Schumacher was robbed of anything is just so, so unfortunate for its very existence.

Fernando Alonso had an engine failure at Monza, a race Schumacher won. Everyone seems to want to erase Schumacher's engine failure from history, but no one ever wants to remember that ten of the points Schumacher gained on Alonso came from an engine failure in the Renault.

Schumacher had an awesome season and did an excellent job, but look at the numbers in the hypothetical scenarios:

If you eliminate Schumacher's engine failure, he wins with Alonso P2. So, that would be +10 for Schumacher and -2 for Alonso...meaning Alonso still wins 132 to 131. Unless we get to magically change Brazil, too.

If you eliminate Schumacher's engine failure and Alonso's, you have Alonso getting around P4 (he wasn't having a great race) in Monza. So, you add 5 to Alonso. Now he's winning 137 to 131.

If you eliminate Alonso's engine failure and not Schumacher's, it's 139 to 121.

Under none of these scenarios does Schumacher ever have more points than Alonso. How many races are we going to cast aside and rewrite to get Schumacher to P1? Alonso needed no races, not even the ones from which he retired (neither of which were driver-caused retirements), to be amended for him to be the champion. Schumacher needs at least two, with all Alonso races held constant, to do that.

Recall that each had two retirements (I want to say Schumacher crashed out of Melbourne, and had been racing outside of the points with guys like Liuzzi and Speed, anyway. I might have misremembered). So, they all had, for better or for worse, the same number of races in which to take maximum points, and in that same number of races, Alonso scored 13 more than Schumacher.

It was just not his championship. What a pleasure to watch him and Alonso that year; 2006 was a very special season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saved me a lot of typing. I don't understand why people insists on chosing one random situation in a whole season and use it to demonstrate that someone else should have won it.

Why not choose Monza instead of Suzuka? And I don't mean Alonso's engine failure as Eric pointed out, but the ridiculous penalty for being in the same hemisphere as Massa? After all, engine failures in the car from the team you CHOSE to race for is also your responsability, but penalties pulled from out of the stewards arses are not. So following this logic I also assume that Nando's car would have suffered less stress from 5th and presumably won the race. And thus giving Schumi an even more crushing defeat in his last season.

But then...you could also gift Kimi with all the races in which he had some sort of misfortune. Or Montoya, thus avoiding being replaced by De La Rosa...

The list is endless. And completely irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only comment on 2006: the myth that Schumacher was robbed of anything is just so, so unfortunate for its very existence.

Fernando Alonso had an engine failure at Monza, a race Schumacher won. Everyone seems to want to erase Schumacher's engine failure from history, but no one ever wants to remember that ten of the points Schumacher gained on Alonso came from an engine failure in the Renault.

Schumacher had an awesome season and did an excellent job, but look at the numbers in the hypothetical scenarios:

If you eliminate Schumacher's engine failure, he wins with Alonso P2. So, that would be +10 for Schumacher and -2 for Alonso...meaning Alonso still wins 132 to 131. Unless we get to magically change Brazil, too.

If you eliminate Schumacher's engine failure and Alonso's, you have Alonso getting around P4 (he wasn't having a great race) in Monza. So, you add 5 to Alonso. Now he's winning 137 to 131.

If you eliminate Alonso's engine failure and not Schumacher's, it's 139 to 121.

Under none of these scenarios does Schumacher ever have more points than Alonso. How many races are we going to cast aside and rewrite to get Schumacher to P1? Alonso needed no races, not even the ones from which he retired (neither of which were driver-caused retirements), to be amended for him to be the champion. Schumacher needs at least two, with all Alonso races held constant, to do that.

Recall that each had two retirements (I want to say Schumacher crashed out of Melbourne, and had been racing outside of the points with guys like Liuzzi and Speed, anyway. I might have misremembered). So, they all had, for better or for worse, the same number of races in which to take maximum points, and in that same number of races, Alonso scored 13 more than Schumacher.

It was just not his championship. What a pleasure to watch him and Alonso that year; 2006 was a very special season.

It's just a random question, maybe it's the way I wrote it but iam not taken anything away from alonso or Renault. Fernando had a brilliant year he drove fantastic, your right Schumi scored a few points at renualts errors, but that's what has made him successful. His ability to deliver when needed. If Renault was more reliable, alonso would have had a pretty it lead at the end. Bit Schumi had some bad luck to. After his first retirement alonso went on to win the next 4 GPS. So I use this example because it was a stunning season by both IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now