2008 Monaco GP - Race 6/18
- Thread starter rpstewart
- Start date
Came out almost straight away after the GP.
Well look at this way - he blew away every team mate he ever had in F1, including Martin Brundle (when he was up and coming), JJ Lehto, Johnny Herbert, Eddie Irvine and Barrichello - all of whom were highly regarded.
I'd love to hear the excuse that explains how MS was able to do this.
Brundle, Lehto, Herbert all came into Benetton when Schu was already there. Schu did the lions share of the testing and got the car to his taste. I've seen it said that he liked a nervous car and that made it difficult for others in the same team to get the full potential out of it. Witness Alesi and Berger wresting the 96 Benetton around.
Schumacher then decamped to Ferrari who bribed away Rory Byrne and Ross Brawn from Benetton to design cars to his liking. Irvine and Barrichello knew they were the de facto number two. They knew they were onto a good thing with a top team willing to pay millions for the privilege.
Last edited:
So, what you are saying is that MS won all those races and titles, simply because he was "the chosen one". And he was chosen because he was in the right place at the right time?
I can imagine someone winning a few races by being in a privileged position, however, to win 81 races (or whatever it was) and so many titles; to get so much consistency. To be so fast in wet races, where driver skill comes into the fore. I simply cannot understand how anyone can argue his overall skill and ability.
Furthermore, if he was winning at Bennetton and Ferrari, because of team orders (or similar), why on Earth were there no other drivers who were doing the same with other teams? Surely, if his skill isnt out of this world, then other drivers and teams could duplicate his success?
Additionally, if team mates were being shackled, why did they not simply follow MS around the track, like Hill did in 1993 to Prost, ensuring that the world knew that Hill had the ability to go just as fast as Prost, but was hired to finish behind him, not ahead of him? Or perhaps Herbert and co were given team orders to get lapped by MS (which did happen)?
It took balls for MS to move to Ferrari, when they hadnt won a title since 1979. Very few drivers would do this. It would probably be the equivalent of Alonso moving to Williams - a team that hasnt won the WDC for a decade - and immediately being competitive.
I can imagine someone winning a few races by being in a privileged position, however, to win 81 races (or whatever it was) and so many titles; to get so much consistency. To be so fast in wet races, where driver skill comes into the fore. I simply cannot understand how anyone can argue his overall skill and ability.
Furthermore, if he was winning at Bennetton and Ferrari, because of team orders (or similar), why on Earth were there no other drivers who were doing the same with other teams? Surely, if his skill isnt out of this world, then other drivers and teams could duplicate his success?
Additionally, if team mates were being shackled, why did they not simply follow MS around the track, like Hill did in 1993 to Prost, ensuring that the world knew that Hill had the ability to go just as fast as Prost, but was hired to finish behind him, not ahead of him? Or perhaps Herbert and co were given team orders to get lapped by MS (which did happen)?
It took balls for MS to move to Ferrari, when they hadnt won a title since 1979. Very few drivers would do this. It would probably be the equivalent of Alonso moving to Williams - a team that hasnt won the WDC for a decade - and immediately being competitive.
Because each of his team mates where crap. Herbert was screwed before he even got in an f1 car. He really might have been something if it wasn't for his accident. I saw and spoke to him in spain and the guy looked like he was in pain.
Irvine knew the score when he joined, I once remember him saying the race was so boring he wished he has a stereo in the car. It wasn't worth him pushing because he knew he wouldn't be allowed to take the win anyway. Not that he could he was pants.
Rubens also knew the score, win if your team mate can't.
That must seriously demotivate a driver.
Schumacher won in some seriously dodgy benettons and didnt win a title again until ferrari had a supreme electronic advantage.
Good driver but I will forever be suspect of a driver that cherry picks team mates and shackles them with clauses. It was the lies that always got to me. Rubens or whoever claiming they had no clause in the contract equal no 1 etc. Then when they leave the truth comes out. Shackled.
Raikonnen maybe inconsistent but atleast he seems happy to race whoever is put beside him.
Alesi, Berger, Mansell, Prost and many other did it when Ferrari hadn't won for years. The difference is Ferrari had poached the whole team not just the driver.
By that token you could say prosts achievement of very nearly winning it in a shambles of a ferrari team was a better achievement.
When MS moved from Bennetton to Ferrari, he had won 2 titles in a row and absolutely dominated the 1995 season. He was odds on to win another title in 1996, had he stayed at Bennetton. By this time, he was regarded as the best driver in F1. No one even came close.
When Alesi, et all moved to Ferrari they were not regarded as outright best drivers in F1. Moreover, they were not even odds on to win the title at their old teams, had they stayed and not joined Ferrari.
The poached key members, but MS still had to go and do the job of driving the car. Eddie Irvine, in his first year at Ferrari, could've come close to MS, but didnt. And Eddie Irivine at the time, was regarded as a quick driver. In a similar way to Button - a playboy with fast driving skills, though not outstanding.
Yeah, but he didnt win it. First off, Prost was a great driver. I would place him equal with Senna, so I dont want to belittle his performance. However, MS went on to absolutely dominate and humiliate his opposition. Prost never did.
Eddie Irvine was never regarded as fast, dunno by whom he never looked good. Neither was massa when he was cherry picked to be MS whipping boy.
Prost never went on because to win because the team wasn't there as it was with MS old boys from benettons school of cheating.
Despite drivers saying they could hear the Ferrari running TC when following nothing was ever done. Oh yeah something was done they made it legal for all.
ABS work arounds legal as long as it was a ferrari.
The only reason MS won so many titles is because of a huge Electronic advantage which masked his decline in skills. They alway said he would win in a shopping trolley. Then the one year the car wasnt the class of the field he only won a race when 6 cars took part. So he had a 1 in 5 chance of winning because one of the 6 was his team mate and he wasn't allowed to win.
I'm saying he was a clever b'stard. He made sure to mould the team into what he needed and that his chosen number 2 never got a fair roll of the dice. Might also have helped that there was German running Ford F1 from 91-94. The last guy on anything approaching equal parity with Schu was Brundle and for a fair chunk of 1992 he outraced the chinny german wonder. Strange how Brundle got booted out for 1993.
Schu was invariably quicker in qualifying (as was Senna when Brundle raced him in F3), but Brundle could make that up and more in the race. Brundle should have won Canada 92 if it wasn't for mechanical Gremlins, and was regularly outracing him by mid-season (Canada, France, GB, Spa, Monza)
I'd have more respect for Schu if we'd even seen him racing fairly wheel to wheel later in his career with a equally skilled teammate. It's a great pity Senna was lost in 1994 - it would have been fun to watch the fireworks.
Whenever someone did seriously challenge Schu it had a tendancy to get a bit brutal - he never could accept the fact that someone was going to overtake. Senna was the same tho until he found maturity post 1990.
Schu had it fairly easy from 01-04 when the numbers started to seriously pile up. Hill got torpedo'd by Frank Williams after '96, Villeneuve did himself a kipper when he went to BAR and Hakkinen lost motivation after winning the title. Couple that with Ferrari getting a free-pass to do whatever they like from the FIA, "Team Schu" and his pick of a dutiful number 2 to follow him round and mop up the constructors title and he's got a relatively easy life.
Last edited:
Ferrari inparticular where always MS orientated until he was out of the race, Benetton not quite as much.
Everything was geared around MS from the team's point of view, I dont see how anyone can question this (maybe the 1st year at Benetton was the only time he DIDNT have this) other than that every other team mate was there to aid in MS winning in any way shape or form
Even ignoring the above, just because you "blow away" your team mate, does that mean you deserve to beat everyone else by using dodgy tactics, allowed to get away with things other teams wouldnt etc etc etc - for me the answer has to be NO
Benetton in 94 and 95 (and Ferrari in later years) got away with murder in so many ways, MS was proven to have cheated in 97 (and virtue of that performance in 94 also) and yet he still gets credited with the wins even though he was scrubbed from the year end results - its completely stupid imo
Correct however in wet conditions those variables get shaken up. A good driver can make a car that is 60kg heavier look as though it is still the same weight as its rivals, in wet conditions. And Hamilton did that. It's quite clear that Hamilton *did* benefit from getting heavily refuelled on his emergency pit stop.
Exactly my thinking - for the most part of that stint Hamilton was around a second faster than anyone else, compensating for the additional fuel that must be 1.3-1.5s a lap
Yep that showed how much they really cared about him cheating. 94 he was given the benefit of the doubt. Theres no doubt in my mind if Villeneuves car had broken down they would have let MS have the 97 title as well. Villeneuves car would not have finished another lap.
It's like letting Ben Johnson keep the world record and gold medal but saying he cheated and it's officially the winner.
Every trophy should have been returned. All MS lost was 2nd place in the standings, for a driver that showed he would win at all costs, losing 2nd bothered him I bet.
to be honest the mclaren report is BS, how can a air turning device on the front wing, that causes almost 0% drag cause a 2-5mph increase in speed once its gone?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,569
- Location
- Cambridge,York,Bristol
I know nothing, but i thought it was a downforce device for cornering - so may well go faster in straights without it
ED: http://www.symscape.com/blog/f1_aero
Indeed, it just sounded like Mclaren were protecting their young driver which is understandable.
As an irish guy, and a huge F1 fan, i can be less bias on Hamilton. He is a HUGE talent. Yes ITV are extremely annoying but if he was irish our coverage would be just as bad.
His Monaco win was a mixture of bad driving followed by a huge amount of luck followed by a very good stint. He kept his head/bottle so he has to get a lot of credit for that.
Schumacher haters: Get over it. Mclaren, Renault, Williams also have had parts banned after it helped them win races/championships. F1 is about pushing bounders and sometimes they are overstepped. The only WDC he won where he wasn't the best driver was probably '03 when he didn't have a great year, but put in some great performace that were key in the end- like france/canada against faster cars.
Tell me about these parts Williams, Mclaren and renault had banned.
Tell me all the times these teams outrighted cheated. Not times they had something passed as legal then was deemed illegal when other teams found out and complained.
Out right cheating.
I'd say the only case I can think its Mclaren cheating with emails and renault doing the same.
I'm really curious to know about williams and any other gems you have on macca and renault.
ITV give plenty of coverage and support to David Coulthard who is Scottish. I'm sure if there was an Irish F1 driver that he would be given the same treatment.
People keep saying that Hamilton won Monaco because of this, that and that. Fact is, he won it. He got from the start line to the finish line quicker than anybody else that day. I'm not sure why people are analysing his win so much and in some cases discounting it as being the result of a good strategy. So what? So did MS or Alonso never win anything due to having a good strategy? Of course they did. So why not analyse and discount their wins in intricate detail as well?
Read what he wrote again, danny.
Owenb said:
McLaren had their third pedal banned. Renault had their mass damper banned. Williams....well, I don't think any of us would deny that they had a distinct advantage before the active ride/TC/ABS/fully auto gearchange era came to end. So, as far as I can tell....what Owenb says is correct?
I don't think he ever said those teams outright cheated. And if it comes down to it - when did Ferrari outright field an illegal car? I know all the innuendo about traction control - was it ever actually proven? They had parts deemed illegal by further rules clarifications, like most teams. But did they honestly ever field an illegal car design at any point?
Benetton are a different story, of course. And a pretty odd story by all accounts.