2012 United States Grand Prix ***SPOILERS***

and one more argument to this,.... after 2006 pat symonds and ross brawn got interviewed by the speed chanell and asked what is it that makes schumacher the best. the answer was

he motivates, he inspires, he brings everybody together, but most importantly..he gets the job done. add to that he wasnt always striving to be in the bst car like all the greats and i really cant recall any driver to be able to do those things. i know you probably wont agree with me, i fullz understand this, but from my point of view this is unbiased and facts supported statetment.

Ferrari2007 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd also add 1995 to the list of years when Schuey
> won the title in a car that wasn't the class of
> the field.
>
> The B195 was considered a very difficult car to
> drive, very quick but with a very small margin for
> error. Berger shunted it in post 1995 testing in a
> big way and commented how difficult it was to
> drive, saying how he couldn't believe Schuey had
> won anything in it. Contrast that with the FW17,
> especially the B variant that was introduced later
> in the season which took 12 poles that season and
> it is clear that it was the better car that year,
> but Williams thew away the Constructors as Hill
> was just generally awful.


It's true that Hill didn't cope terrifically well with the pressure he was under in 1995, Silverstone, Hockenheim, Monza, Nurburgring and Suzuka being case examples of dropping the ball big time. However it's also worth noting that the FW17 was generally quite unreliable often failing on both Hill and Coulthard when in winning positions. The points lost by this no doubt added to the desperation in the 4 races I highlighted above.

The B195 in contrast whilst difficult to drive, was reliable, as quick and also benefited from superior team work.

You probably won't find too may Hill advocates here, as many will feel that he owes his championship to a car which was clearly the best. I always feel however that a driver still has to be bloody good to make the best of any advantage his car gives him. Put Pedro Diniz in a Williams for example and I doubt he'd have won many races even if he did out perform Hill once or twice at Arrows, Frentzen only won once in a Williams which was clearly the quickest car.. Even if did annihilate Hill at Jordan.

hill finished a lap down on senna in a car he knew better than ayrton.

this says enough about his skills.

mitadumapaga Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and one more argument to this,.... after 2006 pat
> symonds and ross brawn got interviewed by the
> speed chanell and asked what is it that makes
> schumacher the best. the answer was
>
> he motivates, he inspires, he brings everybody
> together, but most importantly..he gets the job
> done. add to that he wasnt always striving to be
> in the bst car like all the greats and i really
> cant recall any driver to be able to do those
> things. i know you probably wont agree with me, i
> fullz understand this, but from my point of view
> this is unbiased and facts supported statetment.

Easy, Alonso, to name one.

Luca di montezemolo´s words,
"“Alonso is the best driver in the world. Alonso is one of those drivers, like Lauda and Schumacher, who have had a great importance in my professional life and in that of Ferrari. He has all requisites for winning, but we need to improve car,” he said. “Alonso has a fantastic attitude: just like Schumacher, he knows how to work closely with team and he maintains that positive attitude, even in difficult moments. Now the aim is to improve for the round in Canada.” And that was at the beginning of the season.

For the record, I agree with you about Senna, to a certain degree, and I never really liked him as a racer. He was dirty, probably a lot more so than Schumacher. However, he is still a great for three reasons. First, he died at probably the peak of his career. Like it or not, whenever anybody dies at the high point in their career, they automatically become great. Whether that be f1 drivers, pop star or movie stars. I don´t necessarily agree with that, but that is the way world seems to works I guess. Second, Senna dragged cars to race wins and podiums, etc, that should not have been there (a bit like Alonso this year.) Schumacher has never really done that. Mainly because he was never in a position to do so. Third, Senna beat other great drivers, or almost greats.

As for the number 1 status thing. I think if you are not a clear number 1, then you can never be a great. Every front running team in F1 through pretty much the history of the sport have a number 1 driver and a number 2. Being a clear number 1 doesn´t make your championship any less valid.

I also completely 100% agree with Jim on Damon Hill.

Edit to point out, I wouldn´t regard Hill a great by any stretch of the imagination. But he still was a lot better than often given credit for.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2012 11:40PM by airefresco.

even berger, who almost became the only mclaren driver up to the point to never win a grand prix, wasnt doing that bad.

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ferrari2007 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd also add 1995 to the list of years when
> Schuey
> > won the title in a car that wasn't the class of
> > the field.
> >
> > The B195 was considered a very difficult car to
> > drive, very quick but with a very small margin
> for
> > error. Berger shunted it in post 1995 testing in
> a
> > big way and commented how difficult it was to
> > drive, saying how he couldn't believe Schuey
> had
> > won anything in it. Contrast that with the
> FW17,
> > especially the B variant that was introduced
> later
> > in the season which took 12 poles that season
> and
> > it is clear that it was the better car that
> year,
> > but Williams thew away the Constructors as Hill
> > was just generally awful.
>
>
> It's true that Hill didn't cope terrifically well
> with the pressure he was under in 1995,
> Silverstone, Hockenheim, Monza, Nurburgring and
> Suzuka being case examples of dropping the ball
> big time. However it's also worth noting that the
> FW17 was generally quite unreliable often failing
> on both Hill and Coulthard when in winning
> positions. The points lost by this no doubt added
> to the desperation in the 4 races I highlighted
> above.
>
> The B195 in contrast whilst difficult to drive,
> was reliable, as quick and also benefited from
> superior team work.
>
> You probably won't find too may Hill advocates
> here, as many will feel that he owes his
> championship to a car which was clearly the best.
> I always feel however that a driver still has to
> be bloody good to make the best of any advantage
> his car gives him. Put Pedro Diniz in a Williams
> for example and I doubt he'd have won many races
> even if he did out perform Hill once or twice at
> Arrows, Frentzen only won once in a Williams which
> was clearly the quickest car.. Even if did
> annihilate Hill at Jordan.


In all fairness Hill had only two failures that year in the races, both gearbox failures in Brazil and Canada. Don't think that really defends how bad Hill was that year.

Coulthard in comparison was actually pretty decent. He picked up some poles and even a first win. Sort of tarnished by crashing into the Adelaide pitlane entrance though.

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Slash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> marcl Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > EC83 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > LOL.
> > >
> > > By the way, I think this weekend showed what
> a
> > > good driver Schumacher still is and what a
> > piece
> > > of @#$%& the Mercedes is now. To drag that
> car
> > up
> > > into the top 6 in quali was a pretty
> brilliant
> > > achievement IMO. In the race we immediately
> saw
> > > how poor the car's pace was.
> >
> >
> > It was due to the tyre heat up issues. Quali
> he
> > got heat in his tyres faster than others but in
> > the race the tyres on the 1st stint were
> already
> > finished due to quali. Getting that grid place
> > was actually due to how rubbish the car is and
> not
> > the skill of MS.
> >
> > Nico had the opposite due to the setup change
> he
> > made, he could not get heat in his tyres at any
> > point in quali or the race yet still finished
> > ahead of MS.
>
> from what i read before sunday, Mercedes were
> testing a few parts on Michael Schumacher's car,
> whilst Rosberg was still using the normal "old
> spec".
>
> in qualy with no fuel, cars are usually good
> enough, and Michael was still able to put it
> inside Q3. but with the high levels of fuel, the
> car was just a mess. i don't really know if
> Mercedes anticipated it, but it seems they're
> testing a few parts for next year and it went
> bad.
>
> i doubt they would say to the Brit press "we
> tested a few parts for next years car, yes that
> one that Lewis will drive... and we fail
> miserably"
>
> Nico was always going to have more consistency,
> even if the car is a POS, they knew it well enough
> to manage it

MS stuck with the car spec that they used in Singapoure and after with a few updates, Nico went back to the old style setup i.e old rear end etc.

Hill and DC in 1995 wasted the chance in the best car, MS won that year and tbh it was one of the only years he actually won in anything but the best car. But even in 1995 he messed about with his team mate holding data back etc. The car could not have been that bad as Jonny won some races and sometimes when allowed was on MS pace.

But Senna in the 3 races with Hill was on pole and Hill was where?

In 1994 that Benetton was illegal people that worked for the team have even said, plus who was running team? Yes the same people that cheated the other year. MS passed Senna in the pits in Brazil not on the track, we later found out that year Bennetton were cheating in the pits so would he have really passed Senna? We will never know.

Im glad MS is going again, what he done to Button in the USA was dangerous yet again and tbh totally pointless. All he done was got his tyres dirty and lose extra time. Plus why let the others by and fight Button like that I dont get it. But as DC said thats MS for you.

I hope he does ok in Brazil and does not hurt himself or anyone else, then he can just go with his damaged reputation.

Also Senna being No1 on the list. I agree with its 100% but im from the days when Senna raced. He did change the way the sport was in terms of driver fitness and many other things. No one is or has ever said he was a saint. He was killed as he was going into his peak. 1993 was his best year for me, some of them drives were just stunning in a car that just should not have been there. People always go on about Donnington but watch the 1st few laps of Canada, they were stunning wheel to wheel racing.

Senna raced against really tough people, Prost, Piquet, Mansell and many others in equal or worse cars. People keep going on about Japan 1990 (yes it was wrong what he done) but come on Prost Japan 1989 just turned in on him everone can see that prost would have been on the grass if he took that line yet no one ever goes on about him.

MS is a great driver, one of the best. But he is not as good as many make out, there are just to many questions about what he achieved and how.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2012 11:04AM by marcl.

Quote
AUTOSPORT
Ross Brawn says Mercedes' current exhaust strategy is the right one

[www.autosport.com]

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But Senna in the 3 races with Hill was on pole and
> Hill was where?

Still on the first couple of rows. Which illustrates just how bloody quick Senna was. Not many drivers ever got close to Senna on pace in F1, even less so in the same car. He got out qualified a handful of times by Berger and Hakkinen and possibly slightly more by Prost. But don't forget Prost himself was one of the very quickest drivers of his era and when teamed with Senna was over a second a lap slower at Monaco for goodness sakes. Are we going to use that as evidence for Prost, (a driver who has won more races than anyone bar Schumacher and more championships than anyone bar Schumacher and Fangio) for being crap? No we're probably not.

Therefore we can reasonably conclude that Hill was performing well in the FW16... It's just that Senna was simply exceptional.

I'm not for one moment suggesting that Hill belongs in the hall of the greats but the statistics speak for themselves. In 115 starts (and with teammates that included Prost and Mansell) he won 22 times, he took pole 20 times, he set fastest lap 19 times and he finished on the podium 42 times. Now I'm sorry, but good car or not you don't do that without being a dammed good racing driver.

I think Hill's biggest problem as a driver was motivation. That was most obvious during 1999, but it was evident in 1997 and '98 as well, and it was probably the reason for his shocker of a 1995 season too - the rookie mistakes he made that year indicate that he was struggling to maintain his concentration over a race distance, which in turn suggests a lack of interest in what he was supposed to be doing. I don't think it was a reflection on his actual ability as a driver - he'd driven rather well the year before in '94 when he'd been under a similar amount of pressure, so common sense would suggest he'd drive better in '95, not worse, if it was a question of driving ability.

---

Hill was not that bad at all just not great. When the car was right and on his day he was fast. But you have to wonder what someone like Senna or MS would have done in the 1995/1996/1997 Williams. For me the stand out drive for Hill was Hungry in the Arrows and Spa in the Jordan, stunning drives.

In the one and a bit races Senna and Hill done together the true pace of Senna showed though. In Brazil Hill was no where near him and even at Imola Senna was way ahead in that very short spell when they were racing at speed.

But Hill can be forgiven in a way as all he new in F1 was TC etc and it was only his 2nd year.

1995 though Hill just did not drive well, made so many errors and it cost him and let MS win the championship. But unlike Bennetton Williams allowed DC to fight Hill and at Bennetton Johnny was not allowed his own setup incase MS needed the car!

marcl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1995 though Hill just did not drive well, made so
> many errors and it cost him and let MS win the
> championship. But unlike Bennetton Williams
> allowed DC to fight Hill and at Bennetton Johnny
> was not allowed his own setup incase MS needed the
> car!

Why would Herbert not be allowed his own set-up? Back then didn't they have the T-car. I wouldn't have been surprised if that was set-up for Shuey.

---

Races: 163 - Wins: 23 - Pole Positions: 24 - Fastest Laps: 22
Season 9: Constructors' Champions

Yep, the spare Benetton was set up for MS in '95. Think that's what marcl was getting at in the first place anyways.

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/23/2012 02:47AM by EC83.

Schumacher wanted to hide his telemetry data from Herbert. Whether this actually happened or not I don't know. But he was spooked early on in their time as team mates at how close Herbert got to him in qualifying once. It's just an early example at how Schumacher went to lengths to organise any and every conceivable advantage for himself no matter how insignificant.

Schumacher was always a brilliantly talented driver (you don't do what he did in those Benettons without being pretty special) yet during the baulk of his Ferrari career he had the odds stack up in his favour in a way which hadn't been seen before or since. He had firm No.1 priority within the team, he had what was effectively limitless testing and he also had what effectively become bespoke tyres to his style. I'm not using that to detract from his achievements, indeed it was a master stroke in getting into that position. But it would have been nice to see him fight on a more even footing. That's why for me, inspite of his statistics I'll always rate the likes of Fangio, Clark and probably Senna above him. Yes Senna was a dirty driver on track but he was also insanely quick.

Johnny said he was not allowed to set his car up at some tracks either and had to use the same setup and MS incase MS needed his car. Back then a driver could jump in his team mates car if there was a problem in quali, it was quicker than getting the spare car ready.

Johnny was close to MS pace in testing and his 1st race in Japan 1994, MS did not like this so then stopped Johnny seeing his data.

1994 there was meant to be two Bennettons on track, the one which MS drove and the one everyone else had.

We never know how much is true tbh.