Goodbye Michael!

[Dougboy]

I never really liked schumacher but i guess over the years, he has become part of the sport and it will be weird not seeing him in races. Its a shame he had to go this year because i was lookin forward to seeing kimi beat him with the same equipments

 

[Der Meister]

But that's the point. A celebration of all the great things he has done, well I don't think they are so great and as we live in a free society I'm exercising my freedom of speech or writing in this case. Nobody has to agree with me, it's my opinon. Can't you 'fans' take any critisum of how he has performed whilst in the F1 arena?



In what way has he left the sport in a better state than he found it in when he joined? They have moved to V8 engines from V10, they have traction control and semi-auto gearboxes so there's even less for the drivers to do. Thats great advancement for a driving sport.

So if I went out and killed someone because of the distress of losing my mother that would be Ok would it?

Formula 1 is about developement, technology. Why continue to race V10's when they can build a V8 that has nearly the same performance... if F1 was to make V16 engines, it would be no benefit to the world - because not many people can afford to run a V16 engine. A V8 engine is far more realistic, bringing a smaller cubic capacity to a car with more performance is an improvement in anyones eyes. The world is getting very expensive, "A Formula 1 car is a laboritory on wheels" - Mr. Honda himself said that... and today they are one of the leading production car companies... why?, because of F1.

Also, before Schumachers time they were running V12 Turbo engines and Skirts for optimal downforce... but do we have those now, no.

So once again you have proved that you have no idea what you're talking about. 👎

Which is exactly what the top set of numbers is. You don't divide it twice.

HUH!? I didn't devide it twice... I worked it out from their raw values.

------------------BUT TO KEEP THIS POSITIVE------------------

LONG LIVE KING MICHAEL 👍

 

[daan]

The world is getting very expensive, "A Formula 1 car is a laboritory on wheels" - Mr. Honda himself said that... and today they are one of the leading production car companies... why?, because of F1.

Apart from a brief foray in the 60's, Honda entered F1 because they were a leading car company. They are not a leading car company because of F1.

Also, before Schumachers time they were running V12 Turbo engines and Skirts for optimal downforce... but do we have those now, no.

Who ran a V12 turbo? I'm curious. AFAIK, the turbos were all V6s apart from the alfa which was a V8. And we do not want a return to skirts. Those cars gripped, gripped, gripped, gripped, spin, crash. No warning, and nothing the driver could do.

HUH!? I didn't devide it twice... I worked it out from their raw values.

You've been told by numerous people that your stats are wrong.

 

[Gabkicks]

ferrari began producing roadcars to fund their racing.

Honda began racing to promote their roadcars?

 

[<_Spike_>]

Glad he's going, not only to give the other drivers a real chance but so we get rid of his character, or lack there of. Still, his records are not to be sniffed at.

 

[Der Meister]

Who ran a V12 turbo? I'm curious. AFAIK, the turbos were all V6s apart from the alfa which was a V8.

I'm sorry, there was supposed to be a comma there "...V12, turbo..." etc etc... just a typo, my mistake.

Apart from a brief foray in the 60's, Honda entered F1 because they were a leading car company. They are not a leading car company because of F1.

No, I never said "HONDA entred F1 because....", I said that they are a leading car company now (as in "still") because of their developments in F1... they claim it themselves.

 

[Thiele]

*cough* i've forgotten what nationality Michael Schumaker is*cough*

Goodbye anyway for your last race next month

we'll be missing you and i'm sure Ferrari will aswell

 

[GilesGuthrie]

It's definitely the end of an era. I think that what he did with his teams was truly remarkable. That he rebuilt the shambles that was Ferrari into the success-machine it is today is incredible. The way Benetton imploded after he left showed just what a leader he is.

His driving can be incredible, in terms of his precision and speed, and also in the way he rolls up his sleeves and wrestles the car when it's not working properly.

It's just a shame that his memory will always be tarnished by those suspect decisions: not just the championship deciders and the Monaco quali, but the times (such as in Hungary) where he refused to yield, or Canada in '98 where he pushed Frentzen off at 170mph. It's such a pity that he resorted to those tactics when sometimes (Suzuka 05, Imola 06) his defending in a lesser car was so tenacious and so correct.

A flawed genius indeed.

Oh, and I'd like to correct Pupik's statement:

There's only one thing I can take away from Fangio: The Maestro had far less serious competition to deal with thoughout his career.

I would like to point out that the Angel of Death retired from F1 in about 1992, save for a brief but all-too-successful reappearance in April/May 04, and this has very definitely had an effect on Schumacher's competitiveness.

 

[Pupik]

I would like to point out that the Angel of Death retired from F1 in about 1992, save for a brief but all-too-successful reappearance in April/May 04, and this has very definitely had an effect on Schumacher's competitiveness.

I think you meant 1982, Giles. Things are quite different now, thankfully.

Michael Schumacher retires and leaves a lot of records for many other drivers to chase. The sport will not suffer from his retirement, as there's many great drivers out there to take up the mantle; but this is no promise of closer racing, despite what those of you with short memories may think. Who knows, we might see 22-race championships and wildly changing of rules and regulations over the following years.

F1 seasons both old and recent have mminly been marked by one driver dominating, it's just that there's more races, more media attention, and more competition nowadays. The fact the racing for other positions aren't as exciting, and the constant changes to the techinical regs don't help either. It just so happens that MS re-shaped a Ferrari team that hadn't won a Constructor's title in 13 years when he arrived, and no driver had won a championship of his own with Ferrari since 1979. The team couldn't string an entire successful season together since 1980, as the team was used to resting on their sucesses of the previous season for far too long. Ferrari used to think the off-season was in June or July, and "forget" to upgrade the car until September. I can't credit everything to Michael Schumacher, but he brought men with him who changed the old, over-confident ways of Ferrari.

Anyone remember when the Ferrari F310 broke down on the pace/reconnaissance lap of the 1996 French GP? That's how reliable the Ferrari was when MS arrived. He knew the power was lacking, and car didn't handle for squat, even when at it's most reliable. But he qualified that jalopy as far up the grid as possible, even though the Williams-Renault was a long-established and proven winning combination, while the Ferrari engine, chassis, team members were all-new. Buy the end of the year, the Ferrari was a lot more potent, and reliability improved into 1997.

As for MS's sporting record, it's far from perfect; however, neither was Senna's (Suzuka 1990 and "possibly" 1989, Adelaide 1985, Mexico 1987) or Prost's (Suzuka 1989, Zandvoort 1983). But let's not forget that there's plenty of other drivers who make mistakes or drive foolishly. We tend to joke about it or be more forgiving when the driver is fighting for 10th place, but when it's for the lead, then there's more scrutiny. But over 230 races, only a few questionable events occured (although two were for the championship, I only see Jerez 1997 as a spoil-sport of a move, while 1994 Adelaide was not so much deliberate take-out as a misjudgement by Hill...in what was a contrived attempt by the FIA to create a close championship, anyhow).

Anyhow, someone will fill the shoes. Hopefully, it will be more than one driver...that's what makes a better racing series, anyhow. We'll know if it's an end of an era 5-10 years from now; when Fangio retired, the sport was changing; mid-engined "garagistes" started to take the place of the established marques. The old drivers were getting on in yeras, and could no longer keep up with all the new talent provided by many burgeoning feeder series like F2 and F3. When Stewart retired, the technical regulations were changing for safety reasons, old tracks were heavily modded or axed altogether, budgets increased and sponsorship was a must, and so the overall professionalism of racing teams changed. And around the time Senna died, a lot of the established champs of the 1980s were retiring, a lot of famous marques had disappeared, and the technical aspect of the sport decided championships more than ever before, and had dried up the smaller teams' budgets. The commerical marketing of F1 was king, and decided how championships were hosted, races run, and the show improved.

Despite all that, it's still about man and machine racing one another.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

+Rep to you Pupik.

I purposefully chose 1992 because I didn't want to inadvertently forget something from the mid-80s.

 

[YIN]

i'm williams and renault fan boy,i hate him ,but what i have to say is he's a dawm good driver and one of the best driver in motorsport history

 

[Digital-Nitrate]

I second GG's comments, and +REP to Pupik from me as well. 👍

 

[TMM]

Formula 1 is about developement, technology.

Yes it is but does anybody want to see it taken to it's conclusion. Robots or computers controlling the cars so that they never make a mistake, are always on the ragged line going round corners and then it's down to who has the fastest engine or the best aerodynamics?

Why continue to race V10's when they can build a V8 that has nearly the same performance... if F1 was to make V16 engines, it would be no benefit to the world

But F1 is not about the benefit to the world. It is about the ultimate racing series, well it used to be.

because not many people can afford to run a V16 engine. A V8 engine is far more realistic, bringing a smaller cubic capacity to a car with more performance is an improvement in anyones eyes. The world is getting very expensive, "A Formula 1 car is a laboritory on wheels" - Mr. Honda himself said that... and today they are one of the leading production car companies... why?, because of F1.

As already pointed out, Honda were the leading car manufacturer before joining F1, not because of it.

Also, before Schumachers time they were running V12 Turbo engines and Skirts for optimal downforce... but do we have those now, no.

And is the racing as exciting and close?

So once again you have proved that you have no idea what you're talking about. 👎

Do you have to make it personal? I was argueing against your idea's and mis-conceptions, not trying to rubish you.

HUH!? I didn't devide it twice... I worked it out from their raw values.

------------------BUT TO KEEP THIS POSITIVE------------------

LONG LIVE KING MICHAEL 👍

Sorry, when did he get crowned and what country does he rule?

but this is no promise of closer racing

Maybe not but I believe that it goes a long way towards allowing a more competative season.

It just so happens that MS re-shaped a Ferrari team that hadn't won a Constructor's title in 13 years when he arrived, and no driver had won a championship of his own with Ferrari since 1979. The team couldn't string an entire successful season together since 1980, as the team was used to resting on their sucesses of the previous season for far too long. Ferrari used to think the off-season was in June or July, and "forget" to upgrade the car until September. I can't credit everything to Michael Schumacher, but he brought men with him who changed the old, over-confident ways of Ferrari.

It wasn't just a one man show and I believe they may have had inside help from the FIA as well.

As for MS's sporting record, it's far from perfect; however, neither was Senna's (Suzuka 1990 and "possibly" 1989, Adelaide 1985, Mexico 1987) or Prost's (Suzuka 1989, Zandvoort 1983). But let's not forget that there's plenty of other drivers who make mistakes or drive foolishly. We tend to joke about it or be more forgiving when the driver is fighting for 10th place, but when it's for the lead, then there's more scrutiny. But over 230 races, only a few questionable events occured (although two were for the championship, I only see Jerez 1997 as a spoil-sport of a move,

True, but then this thread wasn't about comparrisions of drivers and their mistakes.

while 1994 Adelaide was not so much deliberate take-out as a misjudgement by Hill...in what was a contrived attempt by the FIA to create a close championship, anyhow).

In what way did Hill misjudge Schumaker driving first into the wall and then delibratly into Hill's car as he tried to take advantage and overtake him? Ohh I know, he should have hung back and waited for Schumaker to drop out or get back on track before trying to overtake. Only if he did that everybody would argue that he didn't have the balls or killer spirit to win the championship.

 

[Blake]

Yes it is but does anybody want to see it taken to it's conclusion. Robots or computers controlling the cars so that they never make a mistake, are always on the ragged line going round corners and then it's down to who has the fastest engine or the best aerodynamics?

It always has been down to the car. Since the inception of Grand Prix racing, you could not win unless you had a competitive car. The driver is, ultimatly, only limited by 1 thing: his car.

New drivers probably won&#8217;t mean much in terms of how exciting the races are, or how many drivers are competitive in terms of the championship.

It wasn't just a one man show and I believe they may have had inside help from the FIA as well.

Big claim with absolutely no proof.

True, but then this thread wasn't about comparrisions of drivers and their mistakes.

And is it about badmouthing Michael?

Only if he did that everybody would argue that he didn't have the balls or killer spirit to win the championship.

but he would have won it.

 

[Pupik]

Maybe not but I believe that it goes a long way towards allowing a more competative season.

It's about the best cars and drivers, when Senna died, the racing didn't necessarily improve, but then again, people point at the safety aspect as "ruining the racing". The lack of MS isn't likely to change the competition; if anything the 2003 season and this season have been quite competitve, and MS is right in the thick of it. I just don't think the sport is going to change come the beginning of the 2007 season, solely based on Schumacher's retirement, ignoring and techincal regulatory changes.

It wasn't just a one man show and I believe they may have had inside help from the FIA as well.

There's been years before where one driver and/or one team has dominated.

True, but then this thread wasn't about comparrisions of drivers and their mistakes.

I only made those points because they were brought up; I'm also showing that he's not the only top-flight driver to make errors in "sporting judgement".

In what way did Hill misjudge Schumaker driving first into the wall and then delibratly into Hill's car as he tried to take advantage and overtake him? Ohh I know, he should have hung back and waited for Schumaker to drop out or get back on track before trying to overtake. Only if he did that everybody would argue that he didn't have the balls or killer spirit to win the championship.

It's a tough call; if Hill waited a few turns to ovetake what appeared to be Schumacher's damaged car, he might have avoided the impact with MS. Of course, you're right, it showed that Damon Hill at least had what it took to try and overtake in what was one of the most controversial overtaking moves in all of F1.

Anyhow, it will be a change. Makes me wonder how long Ralf will be in F1....

 

[Inter 61]

"In what way did Hill misjudge Schumaker driving first into the wall and then delibratly into Hill's car as he tried to take advantage and overtake him? Ohh I know, he should have hung back and waited for Schumaker to drop out or get back on track before trying to overtake. Only if he did that everybody would argue that he didn't have the balls or killer spirit to win the championship." byTMN

Judging from that qoute, you're quite obviously don't have a clue about how racing works from the driver's point of view (Luckily I can talk from that point of view), he should have hung back instead of trying to launch it up his inside at that corner. It was quite evident that Michael's car was damaged and Damon was too inpateint to hang on to the Long straight that was only another corner away from the bend where they did clash. He would have easily out ran him on the straight with the damage Michael had.

 

[Black Bird]

World champion of 1994,1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and is in the running for 2006. An absolute legend, broken every record, 90 race wins, 68 pole positions, and all this with just 3 teams, Jordan, Benetton and Ferrari.

If Senna did not die you wouldent of even known Michaels name.
(Sorry i'm Brazilian.)

 

[Blake]

Incidently Michael was leading the championship in 1994 before Senna was killed. 💡

 

[Black Bird]

Incidently Michael was leading the championship in 1994 before Senna was killed. 💡

He had a bad car that year, the same one that malfunctioned in Imola.

 

[Pupik]

If Senna did not die you wouldent of even known Michaels name.

Michael Schumacher won 2 Grands Prix ('92 Spa, '93 Estoril) before the 1994 season began, plus a number of podium finishes...so I'd say he was quite well-known and tipped to be a future star of the sport when Ayrton Senna was still at McLaren.

If you'd asked me in 1991, I never would have thought he'd be an 7-time World Champion and the most prolific winner in Grand Prix history, though!

 

[Roo]

Make up your own mind on that one.

If you'd asked me in 1991, I never would have thought he'd be an 7-time World Champion and the most prolific winner in Grand Prix history, though!

I get the impression - having not seen it myself - that Schumacher in 1991 was the Kubica of his day; no-one knew what he would go on to do, in the same way we don't know what Kubica will go on to do, despite a cracking start to his career.

Incidentally, even using the old 10-6-4-3-2-1 points system, Kubica has 1 more point than Schumacher did at the same stage in his career - mind you, so did Wurz, so that proves nothing, I suppose

 

[v-tec civic]

People can say wathever they want about Michael but the fact just is: michael was a great driver and there a lot of great drivers in f1. But Michael is also was something else, a great racer and there not a lot of great racers in f1. He has shown some great action the last 15 years. He was dominating in 2000-2004 but that doesn't mean he's a bad driver and isn't a reason to dislike him. Sometimes he tried some nasty tricks and that is a reason to dislike him but i like the 'everything for the win' thing. I don't think there will be such a great driver like he was soon. (maybe Raikonen but surely not Alonso)

But anyway. Thanks MS you made me enjoy f1!

 

[TMM]

It always has been down to the car. Since the inception of Grand Prix racing, you could not win unless you had a competitive car. The driver is, ultimatly, only limited by 1 thing: his car.

The driver used to have much more input than they do these days.

New drivers probably won’t mean much in terms of how exciting the races are, or how many drivers are competitive in terms of the championship.

With Schumaker gone there won't be 1 driver or 1 team with the same hold over F1 and the other drivers. This will then make it more competative.

Big claim with absolutely no proof.

Your right, I have no proof, but how many things have gone Ferarri's and Schmaker's way when there has been a decision to make?

And is it about badmouthing Michael?

I'm not badmouthing him for the sake of it, I'm trying to be objective.

but he would have won it.

Exactly.

It's about the best cars and drivers, when Senna died, the racing didn't necessarily improve, but then again, people point at the safety aspect as "ruining the racing". The lack of MS isn't likely to change the competition; if anything the 2003 season and this season have been quite competitve, and MS is right in the thick of it. I just don't think the sport is going to change come the beginning of the 2007 season, solely based on Schumacher's retirement, ignoring and techincal regulatory changes.

But it did change, it allowed Schumaker to win, Senna wasn't there to try and stop him. With Schumaker gone, next year Alonso might win again and people might say, 'ahh well it would be different if Schumaker was still racing, he would have stopped Alonso from winning.'

Judging from that qoute, you're quite obviously don't have a clue about how racing works from the driver's point of view (Luckily I can talk from that point of view), he should have hung back instead of trying to launch it up his inside at that corner. It was quite evident that Michael's car was damaged and Damon was too inpateint to hang on to the Long straight that was only another corner away from the bend where they did clash. He would have easily out ran him on the straight with the damage Michael had.

So what qualifies you to know the drivers point of view and not me? Watching the video it is clear that Hill tries to pass first 1 side and then switches to the other because he is blocked by Schumaker. Entering the corner he is alongside and would expect the room for both cars to go round the corner, but no this not to be. The rest is history.

 

[Inter 61]

"So what qualifies you to know the drivers point of view and not me?"

Because I happen to BE A RACE DRIVER with a current valid MSA Kart National A Licence and have competed in more than 100 race meetings in the last 6 years including the British Championship in 2004.

Now don't give me all that ****e about how "go karts" (god I HATE that term) are nothing compared to Formula 1 cars as it has been said many times that driving a 125 Gearbox kart round a Kart track is the closest you're going to get to the experiance of driving a F1 car from the exception of something like a Indycar or a F3 car (most notably from Jonny Herbert).

"Watching the video it is clear that Hill tries to pass first 1 side and then switches to the other because he is blocked by Schumaker. Entering the corner he is alongside and would expect the room for both cars to go round the corner, but no this not to be."

Well first of all why did he even try to overtake round that side Michael (I'm talking about the 1st move here, not the one that caused the clash at the apex) when it's quite evident that's where the direction of the racing line is. That shows a period of brainfade of race craft knowledge on Hills behalf.

Also he ISN'T level with him going into the corner, the rules state that whoever's front wheels are in FRONT at the turn in point (which is quite clearly Schumacher) they have right of corner. What Hill did was a classic touring car move which doesn't work in a Slick & Wings single seater.

 

[Blake]

The driver used to have much more input than they do these days.

As demonstrated by the fact that in 1950 the first 3 drivers in the championship standings were driving Alfa Romeo cars.

In 1951 the top 6 were covered by Alfa&#8217;s and Ferrari&#8217;s.

In 1952 the top 5 were Ferrari&#8217;s.

1953 4 of the top 5 were Ferrari&#8217;s.

In 1955 the top 2 were Mercedes.

In 1960 the top 2 drivers drove for Cooper.

In 1961 it was Ferrari.

In 1967 it was Brabham&#8217;s cars.

From 1968&#8211;1974 it was anything powered by a DFV.

In 1978 it was Lotus.

Ferrari in 1979.

From 1984&#8211;1986 it was McLaren. The continued their domination in 1988, taking the drivers title every season until 1991.

From 1991 onwards I think you know what happened.

Tell me that most championships don&#8217;t come down to the car. I don&#8217;t think you can. The car is the only thing that ultimatly limits the drivers ability to go faster.

 

[TMM]

Because I happen to BE A RACE DRIVER with a current valid MSA Kart National A Licence and have competed in more than 100 race meetings in the last 6 years including the British Championship in 2004.

Fine, but you could have mentioned that in your prevouis post instead of just hinting at it.

Well first of all why did he even try to overtake round that side Michael (I'm talking about the 1st move here, not the one that caused the clash at the apex) when it's quite evident that's where the direction of the racing line is. That shows a period of brainfade of race craft knowledge on Hills behalf.

But surely Hill wants to keep on the racing line and overtake the slower car, he could also have been suckering Schumaker into covering that line so opening up an attack on the other side.

Also he ISN'T level with him going into the corner, the rules state that whoever's front wheels are in FRONT at the turn in point (which is quite clearly Schumacher) they have right of corner. What Hill did was a classic touring car move which doesn't work in a Slick & Wings single seater.

I still maintain that Hill could have expected a reasonable amount of space for the corner, but I suspect that you would fail to agree with me. I don't believe Hill ever did any touring car racing.

 

[Inter 61]

"But surely Hill wants to keep on the racing line and overtake the slower car"

Your're getting confused here, the racing line is the straightest possible route through the corner (i.e. far outside at turn in point, cut across to the inside kerb in the middle of the corner (known as the apex) and drift back out to the outside at the exit), not the best line for overtaking. The only way using the racing line would have worked was if Hill was planning to cut a late apex and get the drive on Schumacher on the exit.

"he could also have been suckering Schumaker into covering that line so opening up an attack on the other side."

That move wouldn't have even worked as the braking area is so small on a corner like that limiting the chances of diving up someone's inside under braking. It would have worked on a corner following a long straight though.

"I don't believe Hill ever did any touring car racing."

You're right, he didn't do any touring car racing, I just said that he attempted a move that you would normally expect to see in say a BTCC race using the theory of if you don't let me through, I'll fire you in to the tyre wall instead!!!!!!!

 

[Roo]

There's always the chance that Hill came across a car going a lot slower than he was expecting, and had to go somewhere to stop clouting the back of the Benetton. That's the impression I got from the video.

I think it was one of those "in the heat of the moment" decisions, mistakes made by both drivers - Hill tried a passing move that would never work, and Schumacher tried to close the door on a car that was already partially alongside.

 

[TMM]

You're right, he didn't do any touring car racing, I just said that he attempted a move that you would normally expect to see in say a BTCC race using the theory of if you don't let me through, I'll fire you in to the tyre wall instead!!!!!!!

Wow, I was right about something...

There's always the chance that Hill came across a car going a lot slower than he was expecting, and had to go somewhere to stop clouting the back of the Benetton. That's the impression I got from the video.

I think it was one of those "in the heat of the moment" decisions, mistakes made by both drivers - Hill tried a passing move that would never work, and Schumacher tried to close the door on a car that was already partially alongside.

I agree although there's shutting the door and taking out someone's car.

I bet this stirs up another hornet's nest...

 

[fujiwaratofuuuu]

I will miss Michael racing because the challenge he posed to the other drivers and I'm just used to him being there! I'm not a big fan, being a big Alonso fan, but Michael is indeed one of the greatest talents no matter how you look at it, and whether you agree with some decisions he's made.

Part of the reason of his Benetton dominace and recent Ferrari dominance was due to the car, yes - but as a driver and important member of both teams, I believe he ultimately brought them to where they are now through the input he gave them. There are many people, tifosi and not, who will agree that Michael helped Ferrari become a dominant force again after the McLaren dynasty. No one can win 7 (or 8, but hopefully not) championships without immense talent, perserverance, and of course a little luck.

One thing is for sure; he's made an impact on the sport that will not soon be forgotten. The amount of debate over him on boards all over is testament to that. Cheers, Michael.