Let's speculate a bit
Posted by mitadumapaga
J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that it's too early to call. For one thing
> in Alonso, Hamilton, Button & Raikkonen he has
> stiffer competition than Schumacher had for much
> of his career.
Well, he did race against those guys last year(we can discount Kimi for now since he won't be in a top car this year) and he still achieved Schumacher levels of domination.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that it's too early to call. For one thing
> in Alonso, Hamilton, Button & Raikkonen he has
> stiffer competition than Schumacher had for much
> of his career.
Well, he did race against those guys last year(we can discount Kimi for now since he won't be in a top car this year) and he still achieved Schumacher levels of domination.
@ Gav:
I'm thinking the situation we have at the top of F1 right now is probably more reminiscent of the situation in the 80s. Vettel is reminding me of Senna, Alonso is reminding me of Prost(although he's more motivated), Webber reminds me of Mansell(although he's less motivated), Hamilton reminds me strikingly of Piquet and Button(Certainly since he joined McLaren) is reminding me of Lauda.
Basically there's less of a clear divide between the top driver and his closest challengers than there was when Schumacher was at his peak, and they all seem to have their strengths in different areas, but the top guy is still able to dominate in a pretty commanding way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 03:12AM by EC83.
I'm thinking the situation we have at the top of F1 right now is probably more reminiscent of the situation in the 80s. Vettel is reminding me of Senna, Alonso is reminding me of Prost(although he's more motivated), Webber reminds me of Mansell(although he's less motivated), Hamilton reminds me strikingly of Piquet and Button(Certainly since he joined McLaren) is reminding me of Lauda.
Basically there's less of a clear divide between the top driver and his closest challengers than there was when Schumacher was at his peak, and they all seem to have their strengths in different areas, but the top guy is still able to dominate in a pretty commanding way.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 03:12AM by EC83.
Incident 2k9 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, what I meant was that Schumacher never had
> to fight against 2 or more drivers for the title.
> '94 and '95 was against Hill, '97 was against
> Villeneuve, '98 and '00 was against Hakkinen.
> There weren't the 5 ex-champions that Vettel has
> to duke it out with for glory.
I guess he did in 2003 with Raikkonen and Montoya.
X (@ed24f1)
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, what I meant was that Schumacher never had
> to fight against 2 or more drivers for the title.
> '94 and '95 was against Hill, '97 was against
> Villeneuve, '98 and '00 was against Hakkinen.
> There weren't the 5 ex-champions that Vettel has
> to duke it out with for glory.
I guess he did in 2003 with Raikkonen and Montoya.
X (@ed24f1)
They seem a bit irritable for sure but don't be too quick to write them off. This time last year McLaren for example was so unreliable they hadn't been able to do any race sims and knowledgable observers said that it looked like a handful on track. Yet they bounced back remarkably well and straight away were Red Bull's only real threat.
Ferrari could yet be in much better shape than many give them credit for and the downbeat interaction with the media could be a smoke screen.
Ferrari could yet be in much better shape than many give them credit for and the downbeat interaction with the media could be a smoke screen.
I'm not saying they're bluffing... I'm saying that things aren't nessacrily as bad as they seem right now.
Like I pointed out with McLaren last year, they had a bad pre-season with the result that the media and F1 fans alike were at panic stations. 1st race in and they're already comfortably P2 and sniffing at the heels of Red Bull yet if the testing results were anything to go by then they should have been midfield at best.
So sure Ferrari are dissapointed because basically they've had their most problematic pre-season for a while but you certiainly shouldn't write them off at any cost as they could yet turn up at Melbourne with a revised package or having made progress in understanding the car via their simulator and look quite handy afterall.
Besides your point about Red Bull & Brawn doesn't stack up. In 2009 Brawn only had a couple of days testing compared to their rivals... Since it was a brand new car with a different engine.. they were never going to do the minimum fuel underweight trick nor deliberately trundle around 3-5 seconds of their potential because understanding the car was far more important, Honda had basically bankrolled their season anyway so attracting sponsors wasn't immediately imperative. The Brawn pace was nothing other than genuine non nonsense right from the word go.
Red Bull neither hide nor gloryboat their form in testing either, they simply do their work. And anyway the impressions about their strength wasn't derived from glimpsing at the end of day laptimes... No... People noted how the car looked visibly better in the corners than it's rivals or how it could open the DRS flap earlier than other cars.. or how it put in consistent times during long runs. Little tell tale things like that which point to form much more than headline laptimes.
The conclusion is... You can't make conclusions from testing alone. The 1st show of form will come in q2 & q3 at Melbourne, only after qualifying and the race will we have a pecking order and even then since Melbourne isn't exactly the atypical track it won't be completely representitive even then.. When they get back to Europe and when the first major upgrades appear is when a pecking order will settle down.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 04:50PM by J i m.
Like I pointed out with McLaren last year, they had a bad pre-season with the result that the media and F1 fans alike were at panic stations. 1st race in and they're already comfortably P2 and sniffing at the heels of Red Bull yet if the testing results were anything to go by then they should have been midfield at best.
So sure Ferrari are dissapointed because basically they've had their most problematic pre-season for a while but you certiainly shouldn't write them off at any cost as they could yet turn up at Melbourne with a revised package or having made progress in understanding the car via their simulator and look quite handy afterall.
Besides your point about Red Bull & Brawn doesn't stack up. In 2009 Brawn only had a couple of days testing compared to their rivals... Since it was a brand new car with a different engine.. they were never going to do the minimum fuel underweight trick nor deliberately trundle around 3-5 seconds of their potential because understanding the car was far more important, Honda had basically bankrolled their season anyway so attracting sponsors wasn't immediately imperative. The Brawn pace was nothing other than genuine non nonsense right from the word go.
Red Bull neither hide nor gloryboat their form in testing either, they simply do their work. And anyway the impressions about their strength wasn't derived from glimpsing at the end of day laptimes... No... People noted how the car looked visibly better in the corners than it's rivals or how it could open the DRS flap earlier than other cars.. or how it put in consistent times during long runs. Little tell tale things like that which point to form much more than headline laptimes.
The conclusion is... You can't make conclusions from testing alone. The 1st show of form will come in q2 & q3 at Melbourne, only after qualifying and the race will we have a pecking order and even then since Melbourne isn't exactly the atypical track it won't be completely representitive even then.. When they get back to Europe and when the first major upgrades appear is when a pecking order will settle down.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/06/2012 04:50PM by J i m.
Add to that Schumacher was in his prime and in the best car... The others inexperienced very much in their formative years and/or in cars without a hope.
I still think Ferrari are playing a reverse psychology game. I'm not saying they're likely to dominate in Melbourne, but I am saying they'll probably be much quicker than they're hinting at.
davidm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think thats a key thing and that for 4 of his
> Ferrari titles Michael had the best car and
> perhaps more importantly the best tyre (almost
> bespoke to the Prancing Horse).
Exactly that's the key difference.
When Schumacher raced with Senna, Prost & Mansell he was a rookie with untapped potential and had a car disadvantage. Mansell & Prost were veterans at or slightly past their peaks and with a significant car advantage with the Williams. Imola 1994 robbed us of a great rivalry Senna v Schumacher should have been epic.
Schumacher's titles in the Benetton were impressive because they were taken against the superior Williams, which is why ultimately we haven't classed either Hill nor Villeneuve as being a true threat to him. Schumacher himself only took Hakkinen seriously and in 98/99 the Mclaren was superior.
From 2000 when the Ferrari was at very least the equal of anything and usually the superior he won everything. Only in 2003 did he face a real threat from more than one driver, Kimi, Montoya & to a lesser extent Ralf. And that group of drivers were still relatively fresh and incomplete compared to Schumacher who was by then a veteran at his peak.
When Vettel won in 2010 there were 5 drivers in the championship race, (3 of them being recent champions). And that's the point... Schumacher never had that level of competition behind him (he briefly had it ahead of him Senna, Mansell/Prost). The last 2 or 3 years the spoils of F1 have been fought out between at least 5 drivers every race you couldn't rule out and a couple of others who could spoil the party if things went to them. In Schumacher's era he was the only driver in his league. Today.. that top league is a group that primarily consists of Vettle, Alonso & Hamilton (this is already a bigger spread of the mantle) plus there is Kimi, Button & Webber who can't be discounted whilst one or two others... could yet break into that group.
In Schumacher's era if in the pub someone asked "who is the best driver in F1?" it would be a rather short debate lasting about 5 seconds. Today? You could argue all night between Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton/Button and still not reach a conclusion. If that isn't greater competition at the top then I don't know what is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2012 10:47AM by J i m.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think thats a key thing and that for 4 of his
> Ferrari titles Michael had the best car and
> perhaps more importantly the best tyre (almost
> bespoke to the Prancing Horse).
Exactly that's the key difference.
When Schumacher raced with Senna, Prost & Mansell he was a rookie with untapped potential and had a car disadvantage. Mansell & Prost were veterans at or slightly past their peaks and with a significant car advantage with the Williams. Imola 1994 robbed us of a great rivalry Senna v Schumacher should have been epic.
Schumacher's titles in the Benetton were impressive because they were taken against the superior Williams, which is why ultimately we haven't classed either Hill nor Villeneuve as being a true threat to him. Schumacher himself only took Hakkinen seriously and in 98/99 the Mclaren was superior.
From 2000 when the Ferrari was at very least the equal of anything and usually the superior he won everything. Only in 2003 did he face a real threat from more than one driver, Kimi, Montoya & to a lesser extent Ralf. And that group of drivers were still relatively fresh and incomplete compared to Schumacher who was by then a veteran at his peak.
When Vettel won in 2010 there were 5 drivers in the championship race, (3 of them being recent champions). And that's the point... Schumacher never had that level of competition behind him (he briefly had it ahead of him Senna, Mansell/Prost). The last 2 or 3 years the spoils of F1 have been fought out between at least 5 drivers every race you couldn't rule out and a couple of others who could spoil the party if things went to them. In Schumacher's era he was the only driver in his league. Today.. that top league is a group that primarily consists of Vettle, Alonso & Hamilton (this is already a bigger spread of the mantle) plus there is Kimi, Button & Webber who can't be discounted whilst one or two others... could yet break into that group.
In Schumacher's era if in the pub someone asked "who is the best driver in F1?" it would be a rather short debate lasting about 5 seconds. Today? You could argue all night between Vettel, Alonso, Hamilton/Button and still not reach a conclusion. If that isn't greater competition at the top then I don't know what is.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2012 10:47AM by J i m.
Look... I'm not saying a Button is better than a Villeneuve for example... The point is that today we have many more genuine contenders for wins and the championship where as in Schumacher's day it was him and that's about it.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.