Time to replace the ICE man too

I completely disagree with this. There are quite a few who are better. Montoya has never been particularly impressive in tricky conditions - a drying track, for example. Drivers like Barrichello or Schumacher, on the other hand, are proven to be absolutely supreme in these conditions


yet you fail to metion the fact that wet weather bridgestones that ferrari have are better than the michelins in the wet that montoya has






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

Michelin has no good intermediate tyre and onyl a decent wet and Bridgestone runners are going bout with tyres for all conditions, but that doesnt matter...

Fair enough, but on what basis are these statements/opinions formed?

Stuff such as Brzail 2001 where in his 3rd race in a worse car he passes (in your opinion), the best driver ever.

Justy the whole way JPM drives shows more impression of car control then Michael, and nurburgring 2003 was a good example of this also




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

Michelin has no good intermediate tyre and onyl a decent wet and Bridgestone runners are going bout with tyres for all conditions, but that doesnt matter...



dunno if your being sarcastic dave but if you are then ignore this

if bridgestone have the upper hand over michelin in wet weather it stands to reason that they will perform better in those conditons



Post Edited (07-26-03 01:51)




LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

I will ignore that comment then LS




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

yet you fail to metion the fact that wet weather bridgestones that ferrari have are better than the michelins in the wet that montoya has

I'm sorry, but how many different tyre manufacturers were there on the grid during the 2000 German Grand Prix? And the 2000 Japanese Grand Prix? Just to name two examples.

Justy the whole way JPM drives shows more impression of car control then Michael

Possibly the most vague and unconvincing explanation I've ever heard, but that does not surprise me.

and nurburgring 2003 was a good example of this

Gosh that really proves his car control skills are superior than those of Michael! Have any other examples? Like Canada 2001? Monaco 2001? Nurburgring 2002? Melbourne 2003? Canada 2003?




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

yet you fail to metion the fact that wet weather bridgestones that ferrari have are better than the michelins in the wet that montoya has

I'm sorry, but how many different tyre manufacturers were there on the grid during the 2000 German Grand Prix? And the 2000 Japanese Grand Prix? Just to name two examples.


and JPM was'nt even in F1 then alex, he was racing in the states.






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

some people would argue that schumacher had them back then too

Wow,you sure like to flame.Hate to dissapoint you but there was none of this stuff on the car in 1992.

yet you fail to metion the fact that wet weather bridgestones that ferrari have are better than the michelins in the wet that montoya has

Grand Prix are more often drier than wetter. JPM has better skill than Michael IMO, and clearly in others too

Yet you fail to mention the fact that Michelin is a better tyre in the dry.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.

Yet you fail to mention the fact that Michelin is a better tyre in the dry


yeah only over the last 4 races, how long have michelin been back in F1 and been coming worse off against the bridgestone? its only now that michelin have the advantage but that can easily change


maybe when the bridgestone tyre is the one to have again we'll start hearing how its down to schumachers talent again, yet when anyone else does well its because ferrari are hindered by there tyres



Post Edited (07-26-03 11:30)




LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

maybe when the bridgestone tyre is the one to have again we'll start hearing how its down to schumachers talent again, yet when anyone else does well its down the tyres

A little explanation is needed.In 2002 Ferrari were perceived to be the dominant package.Chassis,tyres,electonics etc.During the winter there was talk going around about Ferrari making another supercar which would be 0.7-1 sec faster than the F2002.But also,more critically during the winter Dupasquier said that for Ferrari to stay ahead they would need to improve by a second.The first race saw problems for FW25 and the resergeance of an "outdated" McLaren while Ferrari with the F2002 was still considered the fastest car although the gap was minimal.McLaren made a lot of progress over the winter optimizing their car but there were talks of a better car coming and that the effort will be mainly put into the MP4-18 project.Now there has been talk that the 17 didn't recive any major upgrades since San Marino but if you look above you will see that the car is more than competitive and that against the F2003.The FW25 was potentially a very good car but the biggest part of the success again came from Michelin,with the wider tyres improving the car's handling and getting read of the tyre wear problem which plagued the FW24.

As for 2002.I don't remember the domination being down to Schumacher's talent alone.It was a combo of a very good package and the opponents unable to get their act together,even Michelin who were going through a transitional stage od supporting two major teams for the first time since their return.I repeat nowhere was it claimed that Schumacher's domination last year wasn't down to the tyres.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.

i think michaels first two full seasons in f1 were pretty good,considering the benetton ford was hardly the class of the field and he did have the established drivers to race against,prost,senna,mansell,patrese and berger etc.
1992-he never qualified outside the top 6 and had eight podiums,to sugest his win in spa was luck proves your bias.he had one accident with senna in france,spun into retirement in san marino,his other 3 retirements were mechanical.a pretty good first full season.


1993-never qualified outside the top 7 and had 9 podium finishes,4 mechanical retirements,spun into retirement in donington and had 2 accidents,one with hill and one with senna.he never finished outside the top 3, 1 win, 5 seconds and three thirds.

again to not finish outside the top 3 is some achievement.so as far as i'm concerned michaels early career was pretty successful and wasn't a case of it all come together in 94,the signs were certainly there that he was a future champion.

and JPM was'nt even in F1 then alex, he was racing in the states

This does not make the blindest bit of difference. My point is that both Rubens and Michael are proven masters of tricky conditions.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

This does not make the blindest bit of difference.




hang on a minute we were talking about JPM 's car control and you said "I completely disagree with this. There are quite a few who are better. Montoya has never been particularly impressive in tricky conditions "

and then said "I'm sorry, but how many different tyre manufacturers were there on the grid during the 2000 German Grand Prix? And the 2000 Japanese Grand Prix? Just to name two examples"

so where do get the comparison about montoya in the 2000 german grandprix and japanese grandprix when he was'nt even in them?






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat

This does not make the blindest bit of difference

Oh but according to your last post it does Alex

LS: yet you fail to metion the fact that wet weather bridgestones that ferrari have are better than the michelins in the wet that montoya has

Alex: I'm sorry, but how many different tyre manufacturers were there on the grid during the 2000 German Grand Prix? And the 2000 Japanese Grand Prix? Just to name two examples.

But erm, Alex, we were comparing Michael and JPM. How would you compare to JPM if JPM wasnt even if F1 at that point?

Can you expalin what you are talking about please because i feel i have missed something since we were talking about JPMs car control and you suddenly change to the year 2000. Either i or you have missed something




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

shoe-do!

The 2000 German GP rubens would never had won if it was not for that guy on the track he was to far back even if the rest pitted.

Dc has had some great wet drives remember Brazil MS spun as well in that race. The real rain master was senna.

Jonny Herbert that year done a great job in changing conditions we won a race in a stewart. Mika as well in Imola 1991 in a crap lotus drove a great race.

MS and rubens have had some great races in the wet but so have many many others.

Mika as well in Imola 1991 in a crap lotus drove a great race.

I suppose Julian Bailey also drove a great race.



Everything in the past is better than today.It's true,I read it on the internet.

Can you expalin what you are talking about please because i feel i have missed something since we were talking about JPMs car control and you suddenly change to the year 2000. Either i or you have missed something

I will explain, because you have missed something. I'm talking about instances in which Schumacher or Barrichello have demonstrated supreme car control in tricky conditions (Hockenheim 2000 and Suzuka 2000 were my examples), regardless of whether Montoya was in F1 or not. My point about the year 2000 was that the excuse that they were on better tyres cannot be used, because it was a level playing field. At no point was I comparing MS's and JPM's performances in a particular race. That's what you did with the Nurburgring earlier this year. Well, actually you took one single instance in one single corner over the whole weekend as your example, which is not terribly convincing.




HISTORIC BTCC VIDEOS

Mclaren wud have wiped the floor with everyone at Hockenhiem, if not for the loan spectator getting the job done and doing what he set out to do and ruin Mercedes race. Theres no chance in hell rubens wud have won te race if that didnt happen

I'm talking about instances in which Schumacher or Barrichello have demonstrated supreme car control in tricky conditions (Hockenheim 2000 and Suzuka 2000 were my examples), regardless of whether Montoya was in F1 or not.

But we were talknig about JPM and Michael, not Michael and Rubens, and to comapre JPM and Micahel u at least need to start in 2001

My point about the year 2000 was that the excuse that they were on better tyres cannot be used, because it was a level playing field.

Thats very good, but again, we were talknig about JPM vs Micahel, where Michael is running on bridgetones designed for his Ferrari with full competitive wet tyres, and where JPM is on michelins with no good wet tyres

We are not saying Michael (and rubens) are bad in the rain, just saying that consdiering JPM has no good inter and a wat that wasnt as good as the bridgestone he was doing a better job with worse tools

All you ahve told us is how good Michael and Rubens are, which in the context of a Michael vs JPM argument means less than nothing




Racing Is Life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting
Jesus may be able to heal the sick and bring the dead back to life, but he can't do shît for low fps

here here dave !!!






LS's Tip of the week
ESSENTIAL OILS aren't essential unless you're an engine, a gearbox or a twat