Michael Schumacher's last 2 championships mean nothing!

[Sodemo]

Just flicking through one of my old Autosports while on the loo and spotted this rather amusing quote from TGF;

Quote from Autosport Jan 1999; "To win the title in a 97' Williams (which was generally acknowledged as the best car), would not have meant anything to me. "with the best car you have a situation where you can only loose the championship, not really win it. "its more important how I win them".

Bah.

So the last 2/3 championships mean nothing then do they?

[f1grandprixshop]

you got the right logic... but that's from a loser's point of view

[Wrex]

Hmmm, does sound silly does'nt it.

But then again, there are many drivers that claim so-and-so only won because he had the best car.

Shall we start recording Monty's quotes now?

[Kex]

Schumacher earned the best car. Just like many other champions (but not all of them).

[Jordi]

Probably in that quote he just wanted to slam Jacques...

He says... "it's more important how I win it" And I say, Adelaide'94, Jerez'97!

[Guy Goddard2]

Regardless of the quote this championship didnt mean anything to anyone and when we look back in 10 years time wont we say "God that 2002 championship was a farce and that Schmacher what a t***er!"
So having the best car means nothing to him when he wins the championship, maybe the quote should be put to him again or maybe he should go back to Jordan who gave him his chance and repay Eddie by taking his team to the championship...now that would be compensation.



Regards


Guy

[Yoong Montoya]

Just how many champions won a WDC in an inferior car anyway? Not many. The only ones I know of were Keke Rosberg in 1982 and Alain Prost in 1986. And maybe Michael Schumacher in 1994 and 1995, but that's a grey area which I don't want to discuss.

[Sato san]

Originally posted by The Monster
"with the best car you have a situation where you can only loose the championship,

that does sound silly now !......and at least Jacques had to race his team mate when he won his championship ....not like Micheal, who has orders to keep Rubens from winning ..

[ASCII Man]

Schumacher did have an inferior car in 1994, only the illegal stuff (TC, LC, Fuel hose tampering, etc..) closed the gap to Williams...

[alchemy]

Interesting Monster. Can we think of anyone who’s won a drivers title with anything other than the best car of the time? I cant! I can think of a few individual races that have though. One was when James Hunt won the British (I think) GP in a Hesketh. Just ballsy driving got it done.

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by Kex
Schumacher earned the best car. Just like many other champions (but not all of them).

That's the most arse-backwards piece of logic I've heard in years!

Schumacher signed with Ferrari when they were merely adequate, then brough in important staff from Benneton (especially designer Rory Byrne) who used Ferrari's massive budget to build a winning program.

It's absolutely absurd to contend that seats in F1 are doled out based on merit alone.

[TimD]

Hunt's win in the Hesketh was the 1975 Dutch GP, against Lauda and Regazzoni in far superior Ferrari 312B3s. Although he did also win the non-championship International Trophy at Silverstone the previous year, which may be the one Alchemy has in mind.

Particularly notable, that one, for one of the bravest passes ever witnessed into Woodcote when he pinched the lead from Ronnie Peterson, and when he finished the race, James revealed that he'd run the race changing gears with the stump of the gear lever after the majority of the shift came off in his hand!

Speaking of James, I think it's fair to say his championship winning McLaren M23 was a competitive underdog to the Ferrari 312T2.

[Lee Janotta]

Hmm... In 1981, the Williams, driven by Reutemann and Alan Jones, won the Constructor's Championship by a whopping 34 points... Yet Nelson Piquet managed to beat the Argentinian to the championship 50 points to 49, outscoring his own Brabham teammate Hector Rebaque!

He gave a similar performance in 1983, when he won the championship despite Brabham finishing third in the constructor's standings.

Of course, one could easily argue that his teammate, Rebaque and Patrese, were simply inadequate and did a miserable job scoring points for the team.

Some will say Prost came very close in 1990, but if we look at the #2 drivers of the McLaren and Ferrari teams, we see Berger only 6 points ahead of Mansell. The cars were pretty evenly matched that year (Mansell was really sabotaged by the Frenchman getting preferential treatment in development and setup).

So yes, it's been a very rare occurence that a driver won the championship without the best car.

Then again, numbers only tell part of the story. Could it not be that really great drivers can actually hide their car's shortcomings enough to take the 2nd or 3rd best car in the field to the championship?

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by TimD
Speaking of James, I think it's fair to say his championship winning McLaren M23 was a competitive underdog to the Ferrari 312T2.

Well, in all fairness, James was really gifted that championship. First Lauda was sidlined by his injuries, then he gifted Hunt the championship by withdrawing from the race at Fuji.

[alchemy]

Yes TimD That was it, the International Trophy at Silverstone. It was a great drive indeed.

Ahh the International Trophy meetings. Virtually another British GP. Hard to imagine anything like that happening today - unfortunately.

[Mattracer]

Team orders have made the job easier. How many of the other teams have blatant team orders to allow one driver to win and the other to act as a mobile road block?

[ASCII Man]

I think Mclaren in '98 and '99

[JR27]

Hi TimD

Gosh...I'd never thought that this was possible...but...I can't agree with your assesment of James Hunts Mclaren M23 competiveness witht the 312T of Niki Lauda. Obviously Niki's accident ended any further development of the Ferrari...Lole was hired to replace the Austrian and everybody knows that the terms a "great testor" and Carlos Reutemann were never seen in the same sentence. But that isn't my reason were not agreeing with you...The August 2002 edition of MOTOR SPORT has a fascinating article on the McLaren M23 and its development...covering its 4 years of racing. Special emphasis is on the '76 version....an "in-house" 6-speed gearbox, special 101.8 octane fuel developed by Texaco, and on "the engine front, Mclaren bypassed Cosworth conservatism via offshoot engine fettlers Nicholson McLaren, and (initially) secret batches of lightweight, higher-compression pistons from Mahle." (quoted from the article)

The article also compares the life of the Lotus 72 VS the McLaren M23.....I will quote from the article...

"So what's it to be, Lotus 72 or McLaren 23? I agree, the automatic reaction is toplump for the Lotus, which has an allure and star quality no McLaren has ever possessed. The reasoned reaction is to look again, more closely this time.

"The Lotus won over a period of 5 seasons, but drew a blank in 1971 and fizzled out horribly in 1975. The McLaren won in 4 consecutive seasons and was still competitive when it was eventually replaced. The Lotus took 3 drivers to victory: Jochen Rindt, a bright-eyed Fittipaldi, and Peterson. Not a bad line-up. The McLaren took 5 to victory: Hulme, Revson, Mass, a latterly distracted Fittipaldi, and Hunt. Not quite such a good line-up. The Lotus required 3 seasons to set a fastest lap, the McLaren needed 2 races. A fading 72 ushered (with all due respect) Jim Crawford and Brian henton into F1. Afading M23 ushered in Gilles Villeneuve and Nelson Piquet.

See, not so clear-cut, is it"

Again...a heck of an article TimD.......Niki's accident and the McLaren 23's development and the fire in James's driving in the second half of the '76 season...were too much for Niki to overcome......lucky for me I got to roam the pits (snuck in) at Mosport Park in '76 to experience Niki's courage (he had that special helmet to deal with his swollen head) That is something that I will never forget....

take care

Murph

[Jordi]

Originally posted by ®îjñtjûh
Schumacher did have an inferior car in 1994, only the illegal stuff (TC, LC, Fuel hose tampering, etc..) closed the gap to Williams...

I don't think so, ®îjñtjûh, 1994 car was better than the Williams. Senna was having difficulty in keeping up with that B194. Maybe in 1995... but they had the same engine then..

[Gt_R]

How bad can a 94 Williams be...when even Damon Hill gets a shot at the title??

I'm rather sure given Schumacher the 97 Williams, Jacques the Ferrari, Schumacher will run away with the title that year. It is THAT simple. Why? JV had "given" away too much opportunities that year, hence "losing" it. The difference with Schumacher vs other recent champions are quite obvious. All the champions post '95 won the WDC is the best cars on the grid. Undeniable. But look at the simple statistics..

96 97, Williams - Hill, JV
98 99, Mclaren - MH, MH
01 02, Ferrari - MS, MS

In all these 6 years, the quoted cars are clearly the superior cars. Yet, while Hill, JV, MH all had to race till the last races before they can seal the WDC, MS had his sewn up with handfuls of races left. Sure, winning a WDC in a superior car means not much. But MS made better use of his equipment. That said, if we need a tie breaker among the 4 champions, bring in 00. Critics claim that team order means Michael do not have rivals...but how about 00? When Ferrari and Mclaren are on par...Michael won.

Next point...i'm sure Lee had his words about how MS shouldn't be creditted with "earning" his championship. Sure, Ferrari had a big budget, MS merely exploited it..it's easy... BUT IF IT IS THAT EASY...questions questions, why did so many great drivers that drove for Ferrari fail to achieve the "easy" goal? Answer: its NOT as easy as you may think.

Bryne came to Ferrari in 97, his own product came in 98. 96 and 97 were the goods produced by Barnard. For those who brush off Michael's achievements simply because he had his bunch of fellow men working for him...questions, why did he actually win 3 races in a dog of a car in 96 (that's more than what Ferrari achieved in a few years prior), and could actually smell the 97 WDC? In 97, he's in a position he shouldn't be...JV SHOULD have walked it.

It is the "Schumacher and co." era that Ferrari made the most significant changes to bring it to their winning ways. Ferrari had the money (Marlboro became the major sponsor in 96, prior that they work with Mclaren more) no doubt...but Bryne had revealed that infrastucture at Maranello is pitiful, and their design team were based in England until they finally decide to revert back to Italy.

Sure, the achievements of Michael is not purely Michael's merits. That i agree fully... Ferrari got where they are today because of a TEAM EFFORT. But compared to other recent champions, Schumacher had to WORK harder to get his achievements. JV joined Williams when they are already the dominant force. Damon and Mika, they had been with the team for a long time...but more than playing a part to build up the team, they rode the wave to reach the peak. And with the crest, they follow it down to.

[The Other Chris]

in 94 the williams had the renault engine (one of the best in the field) while benetton were using fords. you could say the benetton had a better chassis until the fw16b came out but i do think that the fact benetton were running an illegal car in the first 12 or so races of the year helped to contribute to shumi's win that year.

[Lee Janotta]

Originally posted by The Other Chris
in 94 the williams had the renault engine (one of the best in the field) while benetton were using fords. you could say the benetton had a better chassis until the fw16b came out but i do think that the fact benetton were running an illegal car in the first 12 or so races of the year helped to contribute to shumi's win that year.

Uh... If it wasn't helping, why would they bother cheating?

[Lee Janotta]

Gt_R, the fact is, no one has won a championship since 1991 in a car that wasn't designed by either Adrian Newey or Rory Byrne. I think that pretty well sums up how little influence on the results the drivers really have.

[Gt_R]

Yes Lee, i agree on that : Recent championship showed that cars has the greatest influence in the final results.

But what some are trying to do is to claim that Schumacher's achievements mean nothing because of the quality of cars he had.

What i'm trying to say is to counter-argue what cynics say" sure, he had the best car, he won the WDC...big deal". That while every recent WDC is helped by the quality of cars under their bum, Schumacher's WDC is different from the rest because he can achieve more than the others and he worked harder for these achievements..

Put simply, if MS wasn't racing this year, Rubens would have won the championship... or any other good drivers would. So big deal for MS winning a WDC you ask? The difference is that while other good drivers can win the WDC too in this year's Ferrari, none could win it as early as Michael Schumacher...none could open a gap as Michael Schumacher.

Like i've said, put Michael in '97 Williams, he would have walked it. in a 97 Ferrari, Michael was up there fighting for the WDC, a position he SHOULDN'T be considering the quality of the Williams. Perhaps that is a testimon of the difference he is from the other Joes.

[KBM]

The only real measure is against your own team mate.

What I know is that Rubens Barrichelo outqualified and outdrove Michael Schumacher on several occasions (not counting the staged ones).

I doubt if Rubens would have been able to outqualify or outdrive Senna, Clark, or Fangio, more than once.