And people considered him a fool to sign for Mercedes too!
Poll: Hungarian Grand Prix 2020, Budapest - Race 3/?
- Thread starter Shimmy
- Start date
Caporegime
I thought Hamilton would get more championships, but not this many. I also thought Alonso would get more so I guess it balances out.
I'm staggered Schumacher's seven looks like it'll be matched, and likely beaten, so soon.
I'm staggered Schumacher's seven looks like it'll be matched, and likely beaten, so soon.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 44,990
Yup, I was one of them.
Alonso was an expert at burning bridges. I don't know if it's a coincidence but just about every team he drove for experienced a slight slide in performance when he joined and improved when he left. Great Driver, but I can't help but wonder if he looks back at his Career in a few years time with a few regrets about the way he acted at times.
Soldato
I don't think he had much of a choice to be honest with you. McLaren was in the doldrums and even now isn't showing much likelihood of winning races. Something had to change. Ron Dennis was being hard on Hamilton, the McLaren work atmosphere was cramping the way Hamilton wanted to live his life. Moving to Mercedes at the behest of Niki Lauda (who he respected a lot), along with people he knew for a long time from Mercedes probably seemed like a good idea. I think it was also about then that he broke with his father as his manager, so it probably felt like leaving home and taking control of his own life to strike out somewhere new.
Looking back now, how bad would his career have been if he had stayed at McLaren all that time with a car that could only manage between the midfield and back of the grid? What a waste of a talent that would have been.
Hamilton was either very lucky or very clever with his move to Mercedes, he managed to avoid 'doing an Alonso' and being forever known as a very good driver who could have won loads of titles but spent his career at teams that couldn't deliver (or maybe he caused those teams to not deliver?).
Arguably you could also look at Hamilton's career and potential 7 titles as even more impressive, given he did spend 4 or 5 seasons in cars that were nowhere near challenging for the top spot routinely, something some might argue that Schumacher only dealt with 2 or 3 seasons of in his prime.
Arguably you could also look at Hamilton's career and potential 7 titles as even more impressive, given he did spend 4 or 5 seasons in cars that were nowhere near challenging for the top spot routinely, something some might argue that Schumacher only dealt with 2 or 3 seasons of in his prime.
Soldato
I'd argue that Schumacher only had the clear best car twice in his career. Parts of every other season it was better than rivals, but worse at other times. Just as McLaren were in 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2012.
Williams cocked up the start to 1994, but over the season were faster and without Senna's death I would have expected him to reel him in during the season - who knows if Schumacher and Benetton would have capitulated in the middle as much as they did though. In 1995 the Williams was usually faster, but Hill had an absolute shocker of a season. Williams and McLaren were clearly better in 1996, 1997 and 1998 respectively though Schumacher would have won by miles in 1999 had it not been for the brake failure at Silverstone, but I'll call that one null and void. 2000 and 2001 he had the upper hand, but McLaren were keeping them honest (Mercedes unreliability being the main issue), and 2003 being a repeat. 2002 and 2004 the Ferrari was on another planet though. Barrichello would have won the title in those cars had Schumacher not. 2006 he had Alonso for company, with no clear and obvious favourite.
You could make an argument either way for some of it, but he certainly didn't have best car for all but 2 or 3 seasons. It was Schumacher and some strategic brilliance which gave him chances to challenge in other seasons.
Soldato
Schumacher was indeed brilliant, strategic and ability wise. I think Lewis is just as brilliant tbh, but that is of course my personal opinion.
Different drivers different era's, it is a shame we couldn't pit them against each other at the height of their careers as that would have been something to behold.
Different drivers different era's, it is a shame we couldn't pit them against each other at the height of their careers as that would have been something to behold.
Caporegime
I suspect that Schumacher would hold up much less well against modern drivers than people expect, and that Schumacher, in turn, would have outclassed those that went before him much more than people expect. Elite sport isn't just a succession of people brilliant in their generation, it's also a process of improvement in how sportspeople are trained, supported, groomed, and prepared in order to deliver top performance. In sports, such as running, which have directly comparable results this improvement is obvious, but I think it's equally there in other sports. Fangio was brilliant in his time, but can you imagine a driver who first drove competitively at 25 ever being able to match an F1 driver who has been racing since they were eight? They just wouldn't stand a chance. Schumacher is much closer in time, but I think the difference would still be there.
Last edited:
Schumacher also benefited immensely from the Bridgestone tyres, developed exclusively to work best with the Ferrari chassis and complete number 1 status at Ferrari as well. Something that just wouldn’t be possible tyre wise and Mercedes don’t have a clear number one driver either. That he’s managed to dominate this much with an equal status is remarkable.
Agree.
I always wondered that had Senna lived, he would have reeled in Schumacher over the course of 1994. I can't see how he would not have won multiple seasons with Williams. 1994 through to 1997!
IIRC, the first season Senna went to Williams their active suspension was banned during the winter break. This had a massive negative affect on the car as it was designed around active suspension as it was such a powerful performance enhancer. Senna was not happy, and the car was no longer dominant, so anything could have happened if Senna had not died and stayed with Williams for another few years. The Williams car that had been a sure winner the previous couple of years was crippled when Senna got to it.
Caporegime
It's incredible looking back how dirty a driver Schumacher was, but also how willing the stewards were to impose serious penalties - MS was disqualified or banned from four races in '94!
Soldato
I think Lewis is probably a faster driver in outright pace than Schumacher or Fernando ever were, but the they had the edge in the mental and strategic games. As another poster said though the next gen usually up the game again. Not many drivers were super fit in Schumacher's era, now they are all working out actively. Even not that long ago, look at the state of Montoya.
That being said, it only happens to an extent. The example was used of someone competing for the first time at 25 vs someone who'd been doing it since they were 8. In US college sports often they pick people with athletic ability but with no background in the particular sport at all. This is common in Lacrosse. 4 years training and playing and they are good enough for pro leagues.
Not sure why people thought Lewis going to Mercedes was a bad idea at the time, the car had already been a race winner in Nico's hands and would have been on pole but for a penalty in Michael's, so the signs were there. It was just unreliable. Nico and Michael had 10 DNFs between them. The year Lewis joined the Merc had 8 poles.
As for the penalties in the previous era they were handed out left right and centre. The Ferrari's were banned in penultimate race in 1999 and Mika had won the championship, only for the Ferrari's to be reinstated on appeal. The BARs had a multiple race ban that saw Jenson working as a commentator. Benetton in 1994 as mentioned. Plenty more of that sort of stuff happening all over the place.
Another interesting thing is to hear people talk of various eras/seasons as being boring or dominated, especially when RB were winning, no-one could touch them. That being said in 2012 the first 7 races were won by 7 different drivers. Surely that has to be exciting.
That being said, it only happens to an extent. The example was used of someone competing for the first time at 25 vs someone who'd been doing it since they were 8. In US college sports often they pick people with athletic ability but with no background in the particular sport at all. This is common in Lacrosse. 4 years training and playing and they are good enough for pro leagues.
Not sure why people thought Lewis going to Mercedes was a bad idea at the time, the car had already been a race winner in Nico's hands and would have been on pole but for a penalty in Michael's, so the signs were there. It was just unreliable. Nico and Michael had 10 DNFs between them. The year Lewis joined the Merc had 8 poles.
As for the penalties in the previous era they were handed out left right and centre. The Ferrari's were banned in penultimate race in 1999 and Mika had won the championship, only for the Ferrari's to be reinstated on appeal. The BARs had a multiple race ban that saw Jenson working as a commentator. Benetton in 1994 as mentioned. Plenty more of that sort of stuff happening all over the place.
Another interesting thing is to hear people talk of various eras/seasons as being boring or dominated, especially when RB were winning, no-one could touch them. That being said in 2012 the first 7 races were won by 7 different drivers. Surely that has to be exciting.
Soldato
I won't argue that, only add that his team-mates were hardly shoddy. He ended the career of a triple world champion and every year he had team-mates who were race winners or future race winners with the exception of 1992.
That said I never rated Irvine, though certainly in his first season at Ferrari he was the very definition of a second driver, sometimes with the cars having a completely different rear end as Ferrari struggled to make the 1996 one more reliable. Barrichello was much more rounded and consistent than Irvine but probably lacked in the mental strength to challenge for a title against someone like Schumacher even it he was allowed to - and his front running days were well behind him by the time his chance came at Brawn.
The Bridgestones could be as much of a hindrance as a positive remember too. Bridgestone was key in turning the all-conquering 2004 car into barely being a midfield runner in 2005 and were weaker than Michelin through much of 2003 too. Indeed 2003 particularly and probably 2006 I would suggest are the only seasons where Bridgestone and Michelin were broadly level.
As you rightly said though, since 2007 that hasn't been an option - everyone has had the same rubber to play with.
Last edited:
I love debates like this, comparing eras and cars.
1994: As others have said, Williams were hurt badly by how late the regulation change banning active suspension and other driver aids for 1994 came in 1993. Their 1994 design would have been well underway. Even in the Senna film you can hear Senna saying to Newey how unbalanced the car was; understeer on entry AND mid-corner oversteer, a nightmare combination. Newey later admitted that they initialy cocked up the fundamentals of the suspension design and the height of the front wing, almost because they'd forgotten how to work with conventional springs and dampers in their 'active' years. For a Ford V8 Benetton to be faster though raises questions; yes Schumacher was extremely talented, but the potential for electronic shenanigans was likely there. Benetton's fuel rig doctoring was also a factor; how often did Schumacher pass the Williams cars via the pits? The Benetton was obviously optimised for Schumacher though; look how both Verstappen and Lehto struggled in the sister car.
1995: Yes, the Williams was much improved, but then again so was the Benetton. I still think the Williams was not quite as refined as people think, and Benetton now had the same engine as them, in a winning chassis and driver combination.
1997: The Ferrari was plainly inferior to the Williams, no doubt. Schumacher also had the problem of the rise of McLaren (courtesy of Newey) also stealing wins and points.
1999: Who knows what might have happened? That Irvine came even close speaks volumes for the quality of the car. Hakkinen did his best to throw it it away mid/late season (Monza anyone?) and you had Jordan at their peak nicking wins too.
2000: An epic battle with two teams and drivers at the height of their powers.
2001: With greater reliability, either Williams or McLaren should have taken the championship. The Williams in particular was a beast when it worked.
2003: Arguably Williams or more likely McLaren (Kimi) should have won the championship. That mid-season rule change for Michelin really shafted both teams, and swung the pendulum back to Ferrari.
2005: Bridgestone cocked up their tyres. McLaren cocked up their car. Kimi should have won, but instead kept breaking down (or flat-spotting his tyres!) Alonso won by good drives, but also good luck and good reliability.
2006: Alonso really won on merit (much as it pains me to say so, as I never warmed to the bloke). The mass damper rule change, and the Monza penalty thing was shady meddling by the FIA
2007: Conspiracy theory; due to spygate, McLaren were forced to try and shaft Hamilton at Malaysia with his tyres, and when he was still in with a shout at Brazil, introduce an engine 'glitch'... (I'm joking, or am I!)
1994: As others have said, Williams were hurt badly by how late the regulation change banning active suspension and other driver aids for 1994 came in 1993. Their 1994 design would have been well underway. Even in the Senna film you can hear Senna saying to Newey how unbalanced the car was; understeer on entry AND mid-corner oversteer, a nightmare combination. Newey later admitted that they initialy cocked up the fundamentals of the suspension design and the height of the front wing, almost because they'd forgotten how to work with conventional springs and dampers in their 'active' years. For a Ford V8 Benetton to be faster though raises questions; yes Schumacher was extremely talented, but the potential for electronic shenanigans was likely there. Benetton's fuel rig doctoring was also a factor; how often did Schumacher pass the Williams cars via the pits? The Benetton was obviously optimised for Schumacher though; look how both Verstappen and Lehto struggled in the sister car.
1995: Yes, the Williams was much improved, but then again so was the Benetton. I still think the Williams was not quite as refined as people think, and Benetton now had the same engine as them, in a winning chassis and driver combination.
1997: The Ferrari was plainly inferior to the Williams, no doubt. Schumacher also had the problem of the rise of McLaren (courtesy of Newey) also stealing wins and points.
1999: Who knows what might have happened? That Irvine came even close speaks volumes for the quality of the car. Hakkinen did his best to throw it it away mid/late season (Monza anyone?) and you had Jordan at their peak nicking wins too.
2000: An epic battle with two teams and drivers at the height of their powers.
2001: With greater reliability, either Williams or McLaren should have taken the championship. The Williams in particular was a beast when it worked.
2003: Arguably Williams or more likely McLaren (Kimi) should have won the championship. That mid-season rule change for Michelin really shafted both teams, and swung the pendulum back to Ferrari.
2005: Bridgestone cocked up their tyres. McLaren cocked up their car. Kimi should have won, but instead kept breaking down (or flat-spotting his tyres!) Alonso won by good drives, but also good luck and good reliability.
2006: Alonso really won on merit (much as it pains me to say so, as I never warmed to the bloke). The mass damper rule change, and the Monza penalty thing was shady meddling by the FIA
2007: Conspiracy theory; due to spygate, McLaren were forced to try and shaft Hamilton at Malaysia with his tyres, and when he was still in with a shout at Brazil, introduce an engine 'glitch'... (I'm joking, or am I!)
Caporegime
Interesting bit of radio between Seb and his team:
Turns out Ferrari were calling for him to go onto the same (bad) soft tyre strategy that ruined Leclerc's race and Vettel told the team to put him on Mediums instead. Good work, Vettel.
Turns out Ferrari were calling for him to go onto the same (bad) soft tyre strategy that ruined Leclerc's race and Vettel told the team to put him on Mediums instead. Good work, Vettel.
Soldato
*edit* Whoops wrong thread 