Is Hamilton desperate or what?

[Just_a_fan]

Benetton tailored their cars to the liking of MS to the extend that other drivers were unable to get anything special out of them -Lehto,Verstappen,patrese,Herbert
Alesi and Berger would agree to this.

MS was quicker in the Benetton than his team mates because he was simply better than them. There is a very informative bit of video (on youtube if I remember correctly) that examines in detail Schuie and Herbert driving around Bridge/Priory in the Benetton. Schuie carries more speed because he drives the car totally differently to Herbert (who drives it quite 'traditionally') and is able to hold the car much closer to the limit than Herbest is. Not because the car is 'suited to him' but just because he is better.

[timbo]

Benetton tailored their cars to the liking of MS to the extend that other drivers were unable to get anything special out of them -Lehto,Verstappen,patrese,Herbert
Alesi and Berger would agree to this.

MS was quicker in the Benetton than his team mates because he was simply better than them. There is a very informative bit of video (on youtube if I remember correctly) that examines in detail Schuie and Herbert driving around Bridge/Priory in the Benetton. Schuie carries more speed because he drives the car totally differently to Herbert (who drives it quite 'traditionally') and is able to hold the car much closer to the limit than Herbest is. Not because the car is 'suited to him' but just because he is better.

That doesn't explain why his partners actually complained about their cars.

In 1994, the season in which Schumacher seemed to romp to a virtually unchallenged first title, his team-mate was a young Jos Verstappen. Though very inexperienced, here was a man who had just waltzed the German F3 championship, had set some blistering test times for Footwork, and had to fight off McLaren's interest before signing as a test driver for Benetton. His meteoric rise to F1 is only comparable to that of Jarno Trulli and Kimi Räikkönen, his wet-weather performances have always been awesome - so he would be a man to understand all about cars. And yet, when quizzed in 1994 about his lack of qualifying speed and race pace compared to Schumacher, he is quoted as saying that he found Michael's set-up undriveable.

http://forix.autosport.com/8w/mschumacher.html

[Just_a_fan]

Yes, he found "Michael's setup undriveable".

Irvine had the same problem at Ferrari. His engineers set up his car intially for him and he struggled. When he said he wanted more at the front end, i.e. more oversteery set up, the engineers were loathe to give it to him because it would have been even more than Schuie liked and previous teammates didn't like Schuie's oversteering style. Irvine wanted more. When he got it his performance improved.

If you stick one driver's settings on the car then the other driver will notice and might struggle. That is not the same as the team building a naturally oversteering car.

[marcush.]

i can´tunderstand..the same schumacher who was not all that good after all as we have heard now was so much better than Herbert (!) Brundle (!) Patrese,Verstappen ,Irvine etc etc ..Icannot string this together really.
The magic is in the car suited to his stile.
You can see in driver pairings who worked together for long times ,for example berger and alesi that these two had years when it swung in Bergers favour and other years it went the other ways round...depending on car characteristics suiting more one or the other.
alesi might not be a good example for communicating his setup needs but Berger surely had learned his trade from the years with senna.

That neutral car talk is a question of steady state behaviour and there you need neutral. In transient the world is completely different .And as soon as the car is changing quicker than you can adapt it does create fear.if you are able to anticipate no prob but if not you back off.

[Just_a_fan]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Schuie was better than Herbert et al.

He's not the god that some of his fans would believe but then neither was Senna, Prost, Fangio etc.

Schuie was helped by the circumstances he raced in, particularly in the early 2000s, but he still had to make the most of those circumstances. Just as any other driver has had to.

The argument that Hamilton is only beating Button "because the car was designed for him" falls flat when one remembers that no matter how the car is designed, the driver still has to turn in the performances in it. If I went to McLaren and said "build me a car to suit my style" I would still end up driving around at the back of the grid because I'm not a good enough driver to use the car to its maximum.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Schuie was better than Herbert et al.

He's not the god that some of his fans would believe but then neither was Senna, Prost, Fangio etc.

Schuie was helped by the circumstances he raced in, particularly in the early 2000s, but he still had to make the most of those circumstances. Just as any other driver has had to.

The argument that Hamilton is only beating Button "because the car was designed for him" falls flat when one remembers that no matter how the car is designed, the driver still has to turn in the performances in it. If I went to McLaren and said "build me a car to suit my style" I would still end up driving around at the back of the grid because I'm not a good enough driver to use the car to its maximum.

Senna was a god.

He races with them now...I have proof!

[marcush.]

yes you have..

[Just_a_fan]

I understand that Senna was quite the Christian and would probably not appreciate being considered a god by people...

Ironic really.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I understand that Senna was quite the Christian and would probably not appreciate being considered a god by people...

Ironic really.

I guess F1 technical should also be totally devoid of any humour?

[marcush.]

too many germans..

[andrew]

Jokes about engines are ok as long as there is a technical element!

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Schuie was better than Herbert et al.

He's not the god that some of his fans would believe but then neither was Senna, Prost, Fangio etc.

Schuie was helped by the circumstances he raced in, particularly in the early 2000s, but he still had to make the most of those circumstances. Just as any other driver has had to.

The argument that Hamilton is only beating Button "because the car was designed for him" falls flat when one remembers that no matter how the car is designed, the driver still has to turn in the performances in it. If I went to McLaren and said "build me a car to suit my style" I would still end up driving around at the back of the grid because I'm not a good enough driver to use the car to its maximum.

I agree. A guy likes understeer for example. A car is built for him (or should I say the car is built and the driver likes it). This car goes 90 seconds around the track.
The other guy likes over-steer. A car is built for him and that car goes 89 seconds around the track.

All it is just saying is that the fastest way around the track is with oversteer. The same thing applies for the opposite.

If there is another track where under steer is the fastest way around. The understeery car will go the fastest.

So you see the neutral car and Adaptable driver will have the advantage.

[marcush.]

I don't think there was ever any doubt that Schuie was better than Herbert et al.

He's not the god that some of his fans would believe but then neither was Senna, Prost, Fangio etc.

Schuie was helped by the circumstances he raced in, particularly in the early 2000s, but he still had to make the most of those circumstances. Just as any other driver has had to.

The argument that Hamilton is only beating Button "because the car was designed for him" falls flat when one remembers that no matter how the car is designed, the driver still has to turn in the performances in it. If I went to McLaren and said "build me a car to suit my style" I would still end up driving around at the back of the grid because I'm not a good enough driver to use the car to its maximum.

I agree. A guy likes understeer for example. A car is built for him (or should I say the car is built and the driver likes it). This car goes 90 seconds around the track.
The other guy likes over-steer. A car is built for him and that car goes 89 seconds around the track.

All it is just saying is that the fastest way around the track is with oversteer. The same thing applies for the opposite.

If there is another track where under steer is the fastest way around. The understeery car will go the fastest.

So you see the neutral car and Adaptable driver will have the advantage.

you cannot answer this with yes or no .If it were that easy all cars would be within half a second. Of course they all know how to setup for over or understeer .
Unfortunatelly this alone will not make the car quick.You have to go into a LOT more detail,the transient behaviour will decide if a driver will be able to explore the performance envelope fully .

[Shrieker]

When was the last time you've seen Lewis take anybody out ?

A resentful Raikkonen, however, was less understanding. "There's not much I can say,” he said. “My race was ruined by Hamilton's mistake. Obviously, anyone can make mistakes, but it's one thing to make a mistake at 200 mph but another to hit a car stopped at a red light.

My pleasure to honor your request. You asked for it, you got it.

Hamilton's mistake all the way alright, but that's all you can come up with ? A pitlane mishap, not even an on track fight. Which by the way, was what we've been discussing about. But you know that very well too.

[marcush.]

hitting another driver enough to cause a puncture is just as bad and full of sarcasm..
Hamilton is not shy to MAKE contact even before the first corner