Michael Schumacher not as adaptable as previously thought?

[Aryoh]

Yet another driverbashing non-technical thread? I thought these were getting stopped.

Simple fact is, the more successful someone is, the easier it is for their critics to bash them when things are not going well.

The facts as to why he has not had the performances it plain for all to see. The car is a dog and the guy hasn't raced for 3 years. Anyone who expected anything more than a mid-field performance was and is deluded.

It'll be interesting to see who many of the bashers will eat humble pie if things do start to go well. Better start cooking them now, 'cos I'm gonna need a hell of a lt!

+1

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't think talent disappears, especially when the talent is intangible. I think what we are seeing is what portion of Skill is talent. For example Tiger Woods: he is another Michael Schumacher, he has become good from specialized and repetitive training. He has talent, but training is a very large portion of his skill.

So I would say that Schumacher's talent has not diminished. He has just lost some of his skill, which came from hours of training, studying and repetition.

I don't buy the 3 years absent from racing excuse. He has been racing for the last 6 months.

Some posters have posted some reference from Michael's engineers and Ross Brawn. All good, but is there any more proof that he was an adaptable driver? Rain does not count, because he had traction control He was very good at turning those knobs too!

[Aryoh]

.

I don't buy the 3 years absent from racing excuse. He has been racing for the last 6 months.

Sorry but when you say last 6 months people get feeling that he drive car 180 days.

[PlatinumZealot]

Yeah, the bashers might think that, but In terms of hours/or distance in the car over the 12 races, I assume it is enough for him to come up to speed.

[ringo]

Micheal is good in the wet.... in a ferrari.
In a Mercedes, his teammate is better. His talent is either not compatible with the car, or it is such that it needs to be honed with testing.

His dislike for simulator work is also an aspect of not being able to adapt.I think if we had full testing he would be on top of his game. He just seems to be like those kids who solve a rubiks cube from memory, but don't truly know the principles of it, so have to repeatedly solve it to master it.

I wish him all the best with next year's car. This year should be enough practice for him. He simply needs the best tools to succeed , somewhat like Jenson Button.

[Catalyst]

I think what most people miss here is the fact that talent without practice is worthless. If people can be immediately successful by just being talented, we'd have a lot more successful people than we do now.

In fact, there is the so called "10,000-hour rule" which was described in the book "Outliers". The rule estimates the number of hours required for a talented person to be on top of their game, based on historical evidence. It may not be accurate but it does indicate the significant amount of training a talented person needs to do.

So Michael's significant lack of testing for the past 3 years, coupled with the fact that he cannot do any testing this year does justify his performance. In fact, I propose that If you could take a sample of today's drivers and compare them with their pre-2009 forms, you would find that the latter are better because they did a lot more testing back then.

[LionKing]

[quote="ringo"]Micheal is good in the wet.... in a ferrari.

He won first first races with Benetton in a wet 1992 SPA race with over a half minute margin. Some members of the grid in that race were Senna, Mansell, Hakkinen, Alesi, Patrese .... A simple fact check may reveal that they were not any good enough adversary anyway. But in my humble opinion they were...

In 1996 Williams won 12 out of 16 races. When it rained heavily in Barcelona, Micheal destroyed the field with 1996's not so good Ferrari. "It was not a race, it was a demonstration of brilliance" - Sir Stirling Moss.

There was a nice cartoon about internet forums, i could not put an image but the idea is:

- Are you coming to bed?
- No, I can't. This is important.
- What?
- Someone is WRONG on internet

I know that ignorance is bliss but I am being deprived of sleep here, please

[Shrieker]

Again for those saying he did not have competition Aryton lost his life trying chase him down in Imola.

Ok, now that's disgusting. We all know now they were cheating back then using illegal driver aids. "We had it, but didn't use". Yeah right. Those words come from the same guy who orchestrated crash-gate.

Ayrton was actually leading ms at Imola. If benetton weren't in violation of the rules using tc, maybe Senna wouldn't have felt the need to push hard, and wouldn't have lost his life.

We all know ms was magestic, one of the best drivers ever to hit the grid (if not the best), but you can't compare him to Senna by looking at the results of 1994.

[Pierce89]

Yeah, the bashers might think that, but In terms of hours/or distance in the car over the 12 races, I assume it is enough for him to come up to speed.

I too subscribe to this theory. The rookies are up to speed now, but Shumi needs more time? He's had enough time. When his fans say that he's slow because he had no input to the car it's ridiculous. Alonso and even Button have wins in cars they had no input in. I know Shum is the developmentmeister, but I don't think the team will ever be up to speed with mostly Honda personell.

[Pierce89]

Yeah, the bashers might think that, but In terms of hours/or distance in the car over the 12 races, I assume it is enough for him to come up to speed.

I too subscribe to this theory. The rookies are up to speed now, but Shumi needs more time? He's had enough time. When his fans say that he's slow because he had no input to the car it's ridiculous. Alonso and even Button have wins in cars they had no input in. I know Shum is the developmentmeister, but I don't think the team will ever be up to speed with mostly Honda personell.

[gridwalker]

Micheal is good in the wet.... in a ferrari.

He won first first races with Benetton in a wet 1992 SPA race with over a half minute margin. Some members of the grid in that race were Senna, Mansell, Hakkinen, Alesi, Patrese .... A simple fact check may reveal that they were not any good enough adversary anyway. But in my humble opinion they were...

In 1996 Williams won 12 out of 16 races. When it rained heavily in Barcelona, Micheal destroyed the field with 1996's not so good Ferrari. "It was not a race, it was a demonstration of brilliance" - Sir Stirling Moss.

There was a nice cartoon about internet forums, i could not put an image but the idea is:

- Are you coming to bed?
- No, I can't. This is important.
- What?
- Someone is WRONG on internet

I know that ignorance is bliss but I am being deprived of sleep here, please

Here ya go :

[Just_a_fan]

He won first first races with Benetton in a wet 1992 SPA race with over a half minute margin. Some members of the grid in that race were Senna, Mansell, Hakkinen, Alesi, Patrese .... A simple fact check may reveal that they were not any good enough adversary anyway. But in my humble opinion they were...

Schuie's Spa win was as much to do with well timed tyre changes than on track ability. Senna stayed on slicks too long when it started to rain and dropped back to the midfield (although he finished 5th so did some good work during the race). Mansell and Patrese then stayed out too long on wets as the track dried so they came out behind Schuie after their pitstop.

So actually, a fact check might suggest that Schuie started his winning streak as he continued it - by passing others by the use of well timed pitstops rather than overtaking them on track. Michael is probably the best ever driver at maximising the power of the team to help him win rather than relying purely on his car handling skills.

[LionKing]

"Ayrton was actually leading ms at Imola"

You are right, I checked again, my memory has failed me in this case. Sorry about that... In my post I was not trying to compare Senna and Schumi. That is a difficult one without them using the same car for some statistically significant duration to get a feel. Both of them share a lot of similarities controversial accidents, superority in rain, etc...

I was just objecting to some of the myths people tell about him, that he had it easy all his career, he has no talent but product of testing/training, he had no real competitors, Rubens was not allowed to beat him etc (as if he could but he was not allowed to do it), People tend to forget that these are companies that invest millions and play to win. If they were a better guy then, Ferrari would have replaced Schumacher with him with no remorse. Just as they replaced Kimi with Alonso and paying a huge sum meanwhile. Ferrari is not Micheal's uncle's team. He brought them success after two decades and they supported him.... and rightfully so.

[bettonracing]

So actually, a fact check might suggest that Schuie started his winning streak as he continued it - by passing others by the use of well timed pitstops rather than overtaking them on track. Michael is probably the best ever driver at maximising the power of the team to help him win rather than relying purely on his car handling skills.

To carry out most of these pitstop passes, it required "car handling skills" (speed & repeatability). Not to mention his last minute qualifying dashes that required the same.

Part of maximizing the team is showing them You can "handle" the car they give You.

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[siskue2005]

........