Clicky

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

shields

Shummacher Myths To Be Destroyed One By One...

Recommended Posts

My post was just as biased in the same way as the anti-ms brigade have been spewing their excuses for the last 15 years or so ....

all I said was true - maybe a bit bias your right but not full inaccuracies as you say it was

Don't listen to him, he's just trying to embroil you and make you change your point of view. nono1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't listen to him, he's just trying to embroil you and make you change your point of view. nono1.gif

Oh shutup you biased hairy Monobrow Nando backstabber maniac......

:eekout:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh shutup you biased hairy Monobrow Nando backstabber maniac......

That's only your perception, I'm a balanced bold Nando critic savvy... smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great video, watched it a while back. Quite insightful.

Yeah. Quite insightful on how all this worship has been carefully built by the media.

Few points to think about:

1- The "other" driver was Johny Herbert.

2- JH might not be in a perfect lap. Actually we can almost tell that that was indeed the case and that the comparison was biased, by the amount of speed JH carried in the entrance of the turn... As it appears, his turn was already compromised. And the fact he did not use as many corrections as Schummi may indicate that his turn was indeed compromise by a previous mistake... The problem with the media is that they try to convince us that MS was all that faster (than JH) ALL THE TIME... If JH was always driving under the edge, like in the video, what was he doing in F1???

3- if a driver is 0.2 secs in a turn it is either because he made a mistake, or he made a mistake, or his car was not well set up...

That has been my point (not again MS, but again the media way to convince people to worship him...)

I wonder why dont they make a comparison between him and Rosberg now... It would certainly be very insightful...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a part-pris, biased opinion, just because the one you are trying to defend or worship couldnt adapt to the other style.

If you think any whimp could drive an understeer car, why isn t Michael able to ??? What are you exactly implying???

I think if there was some extraordinary driver out there, well above anyone else, that beats competition hands down, he would not have trouble adapting to whichever car he was given.

Remember, it is the same car for everyone (well, not quite, but in terms of style and lower front grip), and if you refuse to compare MS to his teammate when the car is not favorable for him, HOW CAN SOMEONE IN SANE STATE OF MIND compare MS to Fangio or other greats from the past and say he is the best in history ???

Do you by any chance think Fangio's car were similar to the ones MS drove that suited him????

F1 is a game in which drivers have to run in cars...

The cars change from time to time, due to evolution, change in rules, etc...

Just because some fanboys insist that their idol has to be the best F1 driver ever, does not give them the right to say the current car is not a F1 car or that it should not be used to compare drivers... Others adapted better than him, which shows that he might not be able to beat past heros in their cars. Get over it...

Oh, I'm over it. In fact, that's half the trouble with most discussions like this, whether it be about Hamilton, Alonso, or whoever else; there is very little objective debate, it's normally started by people with polarized opinion and then it's finished off by a laughable lack of true understanding by the likes of us. We react to what we see and what we read. We are unalbe, unfortunately to react to what we know to be actual fact.

Michael is being beaten by Nico Rosberg. That's a fact. What I find difficult to swallow, specifically from you, is your mission to claim this as some sort of proof that maybe Michael was never that good to start with and that this has just gone to prove it. You may be right but you just need to prove it. You can't, any more than I can prove that I believe he was pretty good and maybe still could be. So let's deal with what we actually know.

I believe that a car with an imbalance toward oversteer is more difficult to drive quickly. But I also believe that in the right hands it can be a devastating tool. All road cars (with the exception of some exotica) are set up with a balance toward understeer because it's just plain safer for mere mortals to handle; Go into a corner on the road to quick, lift off and the nose just tucks in safely. But the deft touch and feel required for a constantly moving back end, the ability needed to balance power, steering and braking effectively, is the preserve of true greats. I believe that to be quite widely accepted.

It's no secret that the 2010 Mercedes seems to have a balance toward understeer (not helped by the narrower front tyres). You are correct to point out that any great driver should still be able to drive around this and reign supreme, and I agree with you. But what about if all of Michael's cars, up to now have always had a balance toward oversteer? What about if this is truly the first car that he has not been able to get on top of because it goes against everything he has ever been used to? What about if he's a one trick pony and can't handle understeer. Look at his current steering inputs, he's not comfortable, atall. I'm not trying to justify it, indeed, if it's true, it shows his window of greatness to be narrow and for him to be stubborn. Throw into the mix that he has been out of the loop for far too long to make an immediately effective return to the cutting edge due to the pace of change and the fact that his team mate is indeed fast and consistent and I believe we see a truer picture emerge of why Michael is under performing.

We can all sling mud at Michael or we can all wear rose tinted spectacles. He's not a God, he never has been. He just used what he had and then asked others for the maximum. It worked. It wasn't magic and sometimes it was unfair to others, but it was devastatingly effective to the point of causing masive resentment. In this scenario though, his previous success is being his own worst enemy. Me? I'm trying to be objective. He's not winning and he's not beating his team mate but there are reasons. I suspect Michael and Ross know why. The longer chassis, a bit more time to get used to it, or maybe even a shrug of the shoulders and a return to permanent retirement may be the answer. Who knows? None of us, that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Quite insightful on how all this worship has been carefully built by the media.

Few points to think about:

1- The "other" driver was Johny Herbert.

2- JH might not be in a perfect lap. Actually we can almost tell that that was indeed the case and that the comparison was biased, by the amount of speed JH carried in the entrance of the turn... As it appears, his turn was already compromised. And the fact he did not use as many corrections as Schummi may indicate that his turn was indeed compromise by a previous mistake... The problem with the media is that they try to convince us that MS was all that faster (than JH) ALL THE TIME... If JH was always driving under the edge, like in the video, what was he doing in F1???

3- if a driver is 0.2 secs in a turn it is either because he made a mistake, or he made a mistake, or his car was not well set up...

That has been my point (not again MS, but again the media way to convince people to worship him...)

I wonder why dont they make a comparison between him and Rosberg now... It would certainly be very insightful...

On the video it said Schumi was 1.5 seconds quicker over the lap in qualifying, so obviously Herbert wasn't just slower in that particular corner due to a mistake in the previous corner or a setup issue he had on that lap alone. Obviously, it would be better to see a comparison with Schumi against a better team mate such as Barrichello or Rosberg and see how his style compares with them. But, as a snapshot into Schumi's style, it was insightful to see that he actually lifted off/braked earlier than Herbert and made much more subtle corrections which is why he was quicker in that corner.

At least for me, the video shows the difference in style between an average or poor F1 driver (Herbert) and a very good or great one (Schumi). That is why it is insightful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is clear that:

MS has a clear preference for a certain car behavior, which is different from what some other drivers like.

Question is: does this make him greater than these other drivers?

Why his preference is right and the other drivers likes are wrong???

And apparently he had a support around him: "Michael has struggled with the front tyre size because, as you know, we used to develop our tyres with him until 2006,"

Now that the cars are different, shouldnt we just admit there are greater drivers out there?

Or do fanboys have such a narrow mind that only acknowledges as great ones the drivers who can adapt to the "correct" MS car style???

I cannot help but laugh:

When F1 is the way MS likes, F1 is right and Michael is the greatest ever...

When Michael is not performing so well, that is because the cars (and F1) is simply wrong... And the other drivers who could adapt better are not greater than him, cause they are driving wrong cars...

I insist: he is a great driver, but if you examined his numbers, you will see that they were achieved in a very special way, in which every possible adversity was luckily avoided. At least until now...

Seriuosly...did you not read the words you posted. He said he had to adapt to a new driving style and was gaining ground on Nico. Forget the last race as the car was just not setup right. The first 3 races he was only 0.2 off Nicos pace and he was gaining on him.

So clearly he has been adapting and was getting better. If Merc GP build a new car for him to be better at, then so what, Nico should also be able to adapt.

You must hate the guy so much. Even my friends who are Mclaren fanatics who hated MS when he was racing are happy he is back and i thought nobody can ever hate someone more than my firends hated MS but i was mistaken.

Get a grip on yourself and enjoy having a lgend back on the track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercedes introduce new car to fix Schumacher

The introduction of a radically-revamped Mercedes car at the forthcoming Spanish GP has been depicted as a make-or-break lifeline for Michael Schumacher in his second incarnation as a F1 driver.

The revamps include a substantial aerodynamic upgrade and a significantly longer wheelbase. The effect of this will be to provide greater front-end grip and, it is hoped, will help dial out the understeer that has so severely hindered Schumacher in the first four races of his return to the sport.

While the official line from Mercedes is that the new car is being introduced to rectify a weight distribution imbalance - "We got the weight distribution wrong. When we got to test these tyres we realised we didn't have the correct weight distribution and we went to the limit with what we could achieve with this car" team boss Ross Brawn has explained to Autosport - the revamp has inevitably been depicted as a make-or-break attempt to cure Schumacher's all-too evident struggles.

'If the new car doesn't deliver the characteristics Schumacher says he needs to be competitive, serious doubts will be raised over him seeing out his three-year contract,' reports The Sunday Times.

'Schumacher needs a car that changes direction sharply, which has so far proved elusive with the Mercedes. His attempt at creating that artificially has worsened his problems, if the observations of a former F1 technical director are accurate: "Michael always liked a car with a positive turn-in. He was at his fastest with no understeer. If a car inherently understeers then you can only get it balanced by artificially degrading the rear grip. This means less overall grip and Michael's car in Shanghai had visibly awful traction, making me suspect that he has screwed up the rear just to try and get it to turn in."'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the people deriding him now will be the first to say "I knew it all along that he could win" if he starts to win

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, the people deriding him now will be the first to say "I knew it all along that he could win" if he starts to win

Never a truer word...er...typed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael is being beaten by Nico Rosberg. That's a fact. What I find difficult to swallow, specifically from you, is your mission to claim this as some sort of proof that maybe Michael was never that good to start with and that this has just gone to prove it.

I never said he was not a great driver...

All I tried to explain is:

knowing not all cars in the history of F1 were/are necessarely exactly suited to Michael' s driving style...

and having learned that he is not immune to car characteristics, and is not that great to the point to dominate whatever car falls into his hand...

How can someone in a sane state of the mind tell he is the greatest driver ever???? Only a full would suppose all cars in the history of F1 would suit MS style...

Who said that the "utopic and idiotic competition" to choose the best driver ever would happen in a car that suits Michael???

Do you agree with my point or not????

I like him and was happy to see him back, and I do consider him one of the most intelligent drivers in history (as he knew his success depend on friendly and respectful relationship with his engineers/mechanics). And he certainly was the most SUCCESSFUL driver of all time. But most successful does not mean the better... He is certainly among the 10-20 best drivers of all time... and even at the age of 41 he is one of the 7-10 best drivers on the current grid today, which is certainly a big achievement, and may still be able to win this year. But the best ever??? Only insane people will say so...

You may be right but you just need to prove it. You can't, any more than I can prove that I believe he was pretty good and maybe still could be. So let's deal with what we actually know.

What we know is he is the most successful driver of history... No one can say he is the best though...

We can certainly say he was damn good in a certain kind of car. But we should also be aware that we have not seen him against real teammates... Team mates of the kind that are allowed to compete.

Was he (in his good days) better than Alonso? LH? Button? Rosberg? Senna? etc...???

In my view these questions do not fall in the class of "So let's deal with what we actually know", according to your own words...

I believe that a car with an imbalance toward oversteer is more difficult to drive quickly.

You may need to change your opinion, since understeer is giving a lot of trouble to the guy considered the best ever of F1. Apparently understeer is more trickier than initially though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it were Rubens driving a Ferrari, with MS as teammate... With Michael in vice-leading the WDC with 50 points against 10 points from Rubens...

Would a team care to redesign the car around Rubens taste? Or would a team prefer to focus on the driver with more chances in the WDC...???

The Only reason the team is doing that it is just because they are absolutely sure that Schumi with as car that fits his driving style would be doing a lot better that what Rosbesrg is doing right now, no team will invest in a driver just to see what would happens, if they are doing this is because tehy know for sure waht Michael is capable of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the video it said Schumi was 1.5 seconds quicker over the lap in qualifying, so obviously Herbert wasn't just slower in that particular corner due to a mistake in the previous corner or a setup issue he had on that lap alone.

so what were they (or are you guys) implying when considering this as an insightful video?

1- this is JH at his normal standard lap...

In this case, you would expect MS to be 1.5 seconds per lap quicker in most of the laps, in most of the races. If that is the case, 50-60 laps times 1.5 yields 75-90 seconds at the end of the race at each race. A guy like that does not even deserve to be in F1.

2- this was not JH normal lap...

In this case, there was a anti-journalistic tentative by the media to make MS appear greater than he actually was. Why did they pick exactly that lap? Or that circunstance, in which by some reason, JH was struggling with the setup or such???

I believe in the 2 option above... And I dont remember this specifically lap by JH... But 1.5 seconds is close to the lap time of drivers who for one reason or another have already abandoned their lap and are returning to the pit to improve some setup adjustment...

If that was the case, I would start to rethink everything the media said about any F1 driver...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what were they (or are you guys) implying when considering this as an insightful video?

1- this is JH at his normal standard lap...

In this case, you would expect MS to be 1.5 seconds per lap quicker in most of the laps, in most of the races. If that is the case, 50-60 laps times 1.5 yields 75-90 seconds at the end of the race at each race. A guy like that does not even deserve to be in F1.

2- this was not JH normal lap...

In this case, there was a anti-journalistic tentative by the media to make MS appear greater than he actually was. Why did they pick exactly that lap? Or that circunstance, in which by some reason, JH was struggling with the setup or such???

I believe in the 2 option above... And I dont remember this specifically lap by JH... But 1.5 seconds is close to the lap time of drivers who for one reason or another have already abandoned their lap and are returning to the pit to improve some setup adjustment...

If that was the case, I would start to rethink everything the media said about any F1 driver...

I don't know the context of the lap so it's possible Herbert was recovering from a mistake in the previous corner (hence why he was slower). However I doubt he was on an "in lap" because he braked later than Schumacher for that corner, which you wouldn't do if you were coming into the pits that lap or not pushing hard.

Therefore I discount the idea that Herbert wasn't on a "standard" lap as you put it - he was clearly pushing hard in that corner, at least. I already said (agreed) that Herbert wasn't the best of F1 drivers. Yes, he was probably having some kind of setup issue where he couldn't perhaps get the most out of the car; obviously setting up a car is part of any drivers skill set (or not) so if Michael was quicker because he managed to find a better setup then that isn't an excuse for Herbert or a criticism of MSC.

Personally I think Schumacher was simply much faster than Herbert in that corner, and the reason for that is as the video explained. I think from that explanation of why he was quicker in that particular corner, could also explain why Herbert was slower when approaching the corner compared to Micheal, i.e. Michael was also better out of the previous corner, hence the speed difference.

Do I think a comparison of one corner, from a driver like Herbert (i.e. not a very good F1 driver), compared to Schumacher, actually means anything? No, I don't.

Like I already said: "At least for me, the video shows the difference in style between an average or poor F1 driver (Herbert) and a very good or great one (Schumi). That is why it is insightful."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so what were they (or are you guys) implying when considering this as an insightful video?

1- this is JH at his normal standard lap...

In this case, you would expect MS to be 1.5 seconds per lap quicker in most of the laps, in most of the races. If that is the case, 50-60 laps times 1.5 yields 75-90 seconds at the end of the race at each race. A guy like that does not even deserve to be in F1.

2- this was not JH normal lap...

In this case, there was a anti-journalistic tentative by the media to make MS appear greater than he actually was. Why did they pick exactly that lap? Or that circunstance, in which by some reason, JH was struggling with the setup or such???

I believe in the 2 option above... And I dont remember this specifically lap by JH... But 1.5 seconds is close to the lap time of drivers who for one reason or another have already abandoned their lap and are returning to the pit to improve some setup adjustment...

If that was the case, I would start to rethink everything the media said about any F1 driver...

I believe the insight has nothing to do with the difference in times, whether the media are sensationalising it, or, indeed, if JH had set up problems, etc. The insight comes from actually seeing the telemetry from 2 different drivers and how they approach racing, albeit even if we only do get to see 1 corner.

Personally, I would have found it interesting no matter which 2 drivers it had compared and whichever corner they had chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the insight has nothing to do with the difference in times, whether the media are sensationalising it, or, indeed, if JH had set up problems, etc. The insight comes from actually seeing the telemetry from 2 different drivers and how they approach racing, albeit even if we only do get to see 1 corner.

Personally, I would have found it interesting no matter which 2 drivers it had compared and whichever corner they had chosen.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know the context of the lap so it's possible Herbert was recovering from a mistake in the previous corner (hence why he was slower). However I doubt he was on an "in lap" because he braked later than Schumacher for that corner, which you wouldn't do if you were coming into the pits that lap or not pushing hard.

Yeah. You are right. It is very unlike that JH was coming to pits.

But even so, why they hand picked such a terrible lap from JH??? I am sure he was not always like that... although he was a very poor driver... But if he was always like that, he would be lapped by MS each and every race...

Some one here said set up problem was also drivers fault... I see that as a desperate tentative to justify the handpicking of a terrible lap supposedly due to set up...

Setup has a lot of engineering, and I dare to say drivers only have a small input, comparable to all the telemetry data and computational tools to simulate car behavior and such...

So much so that even with limiting tests the cars went to the weekend with an already pretty good setup...

Drivers have a contribution to fine tune the car behavior to their personal taste... But come on, 1.5 seconds???

Maybe JH setup engineer was too bad compared to MS... That is more likely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question we should be asking is:

If it were Rubens driving a Ferrari, with MS as teammate... With Michael in vice-leading the WDC with 50 points against 10 points from Rubens...

Would a team care to redesign the car around Rubens taste? Or would a team prefer to focus on the driver with more chances in the WDC...???

That was the excuse all the time to focus on MS over all his teammates... But now, the thing was inverted... Meaning that the real reason behind all those preferential treatments might not be purely based on drivers performance...

Friendship with team staff may have played a big role in MS success, which is a proof of intelligence... and I admire him for that... (intelligence should prevail over raw performance)

I see what you're getting at, but the counter question is did Rubens push himself to the forefront as much as Michael did?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see what you're getting at, but the counter question is did Rubens push himself to the forefront as much as Michael did?

well, he tried to Steph, from many articles I read around that time... but remember the team was built around Michael.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, he tried to Steph, from many articles I read around that time... but remember the team was built around Michael.

All due respect Brad, he didn't try hard enough. The answer is in your answer. The team was built around Michael who obviously did try hard enough.

My point is some of us are born survivors, we make our own path in life, we create opportunity and we work hard to build on our success. For some of us, failure is not just an option but its not a way of life.

For others, they try. Its in their grasp to achieve greatness but they just cant reach. Failure isn't something that they want but if it happens they deal.

Then you have the followers. They never set the trend. They look at the world and are quite convent to just keep living and following like sheep.

Michael is in the first camp. Rubens isn't. Thats what makes him outstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All due respect Brad, he didn't try hard enough. The answer is in your answer. The team was built around Michael who obviously did try hard enough.

My point is some of us are born survivors, we make our own path in life, we create opportunity and we work hard to build on our success. For some of us, failure is not just an option but its not a way of life.

For others, they try. Its in their grasp to achieve greatness but they just cant reach. Failure isn't something that they want but if it happens they deal.

Then you have the followers. They never set the trend. They look at the world and are quite convent to just keep living and following like sheep.

Michael is in the first camp. Rubens isn't. Thats what makes him outstanding.

Your first question was...Did Rubens push himself to the foreground. I've commented that I think he did, even though he signed up as a nr2.He knew the rules and conditions. Yet, he had the balls to hand a late `victory over to Michael that cause great controversy at the last corner of a race(which was very sly). His set-up qualities are well-kwown, he had Michael scrambling to copy his setups numorous times. and he won races. The best way to get yourself noticed and make a point.

The thing that people need to get is this, there were no equal camp. there were the 1st camp and the next is do-or-obey camp, or you are pretty much without a job <----anyone who remembers this period fondly knew the rumours that flew around. I think Rubens asserted himself well, and were it any other dominant team with equal footing, would have had 2 championships uinder his belt. This is what I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. Cool, thats dandy. But the simple fact of the matter is that Michael made the team his own? Why? Because he pushed harder. If I was in Rubens' shoes, I'd have pushed even harder and fought for longer to wrestle back control. It is do-able.

You said yourself he was brought to the team and paid to be number two, therefore already accepting his lot in life to a far superior driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...