LS, it's interesting how you're always accusing Schumi fans of blaming the car when things don't go well, and saying that it's his talent when it does go well. Of course, without realising it no doubt, you're being a bit of a hypocrite.
Whenever Schumacher does do well, in your books, it's all down to the car. When it doesn't go well, though, of course, it's totally Schumi's fault.
Tell me, how long has Ferrari been running that car? 12, 13, 14 months now? Dont you think they already had the optimum setup? Dont you think they know that car inside-out back-to-front? In a car which has had 14 months of development it better be good!You slightly miss the point of that long gap between Suzuka and Melbourne. It clearly hasn't come to your attention that each year Formula One cars get faster. That's 12, 13, 14 months that the other teams have had to design and develop a car to beat the Ferrari. To be faster than it. Sure, reliability is given in the F2001, and that's a great aspect of the car to carry over - but speed is not. Ferrari did not come to Melbourne expecting to be as fast as they were. Every other team, as I've said, has had plenty long enough to develop a car to be faster than the Ferrari.
MS had a HUGE advatage over everybody since this car is so develeoped!For heavens sake, it's an old car. Ferrari have been concentrating on the F2002, not the F2001 - that was a fall-back plan incase the F2002 was not ready. So to say he has a huge advantage is ridiculous.
No, nobody elses CAR was that good, nothing to do with driverI particularly like the "nothing to do with the driver" bit. Very good.
Shame, this is exaclty what James allen said, and DC and McLaren both said that the car selected the wrong gear and the gearbox locked and sent the car stirght onActually, it was Martin Brundle who came to the conclusion that DC had just overcooked it trying to build up an advantage. And being DC's manager, he's not likely to say unnecessary remarks about him.
If the gearbox locks up on a Formula One car, the rear wheels lock up - that did not happen. What actually happened was that the car selected neutral, which deprived the car of engine braking. That's why we saw him locking the wheels. So if
you're going to go by what nobody but yourself says, it would be better to get the facts right.
So did lots of drivers go throught the gravel, kimi tooYes, after the rest of the field were half way around the track. But I'm not going to argue that, because I think Raikkonen did a great job and I'm pleased for him.
Webber was for keeping the minardi going in his first gpYes alright, Webber was pretty special. But still, if you're so concerned about what Brundle says about Raikkonen, then why don't you listen to him talk about Schumacher. Brundle is an expert - his driver of the day was Schumi. Why can't you just acknowledge that the guy drove a super race, in a car that by all rights should be slower than the other top runners, and was the fastest man of the day. No way did the car supply the advantage that he built up.
And as you seem to think that success is all down to the car, then why on earth didn't Coulthard win the championship in 1998 and 1999? After all, it was probably his turn then aswell.
but you choose to ignore that major point and instead bang on about how fast he isI'm not ignoring any points, my friend. The Michelins
are fast at the beginning of a race, it's a known fact. Then they have a lull in performance, which is where we saw Schumi take advantage, then they're back on the pace well before the end. That's also why we saw Schumi just about keeping up with Montoya after he'd passed him, because the Michelins were on their hot spot. The Michelins were not crap by any stretch of the imagination. If the Bridgestones had the advantage you seem to think they do, and if Ferrari had the advantage that you seem to they do, then Schumacher would have been a lot more than 20 seconds in the lead, that's for sure.
I just don't get how after 4 world championships and 54 wins, you still don't want to accept that Schumacher is the fastest F1 driver in the world. The sad thing is is that had Montoya have pipped Schumi to the post, then he would have been hailed king of Formula One by you guys, and it would have been Schumi's lack of talent that cost him the win......etc. It's major points like that that you always seem to handily ignore. Just because it's Michael Schumacher.
Oh by the way, the only reason why Schumacher didn't win the championship in 1998 is because the McLaren had such a HUGE advantage over Ferrari, and the Goodyear tyres were crap, and Hakkinen had all the luck, and....erm, let me think, oh know I'm running out of
excuses... oh my god, I might even have to admit that Hakkinen was the better driver that year... Well, it must have taken some pretty awesome talent for Schumi to come so close to winning the title in that crappy 1998 Ferrari... I mean, McLarens advantage in 1998 was just *slightly* more than Ferraris was in 2001. Interesting.
HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS