what is it with michael schumacher.....does that guy ever lose....i mean every race it seems he's in the top two....there must be something wrong with that type of track record....nobody in racing can be that consistent....i mean look at raikkonen...last year he was on some b.s. team and never made that many points...this year he's with mclaren and suddenly he's got some air time.....i think that F1 racing has gotten out of hand....these days having more money=better car=more winnings.....at least with NASCAR they try to even the field out so that the best DRIVER wins and not the guy with the deepest pockets....i don't even know why those other teams bother wasting their money in F1 when its always ferrari, mclaren, or williams that end up winning....and why do they win?.....cuz they have the most money....damn shame if you ask me....the only problem with NASCAR is it's so damn boring to watch a bunch of cars go in circles for 400 miles....wish nascar would just have more road courses and then things will start to get interesting....

 

I agree with you. I think CART (which as I've understood it, is the US version of F1) is much more entertaining, because of the fact that no team seems to be superior to every other team.

Most entertainment do I find in the WRC, even if I can see a bad trend in that the same cars wins all the time (now Peugeot is truly superior). Hope the rest of the WRC-teams will catch up with Peugeot before this rally seasson is over.

And for me, I just don't understand the excitement with Nascar. A bunch of heavy looking american cars driving around in circles... But I'm sure I've missed the point with it. So whats the point? There must be some very good point given its popularity in US.

 

Personally, I think saying that CART is like F1... is like saying that my C230K is just like a CL55. A F1 car in a CART race could eat them alive...

 

they could eat them alive because of CART's rules and regulations regarding what engine size etc etc etc.

you're missing the entire point though.....F1 somehow seems unfair to me because clearly the best driver is not winning but the team with the most cash is.....just check out raikkonen's last year record and compare to this year and you'll understand why.....i can't understand why they the FIA can't tighten up its rules and make it so that the best driver wins....then we'll see if schumacher can be as consistent as he is now....

 

Angel, are you saying that Michael Schumacher is NOT the best driver at present? The reason he wins so often is because he is a motivated driving machine... more of a machine than the Ferrari he drives. I am not a M. Schumacher fan, but you have to give him his due. He appears to fly around the track at 101% all the time and makes very few errors. Contrast with R. Barrichello, his teammate, who, in the same car (most days) can't keep up consistently. This illustrates Schumacher's dominance... separate from the strength of the car.

It's true that more money can place you higher on the grid. However, the Jaguar team (and to a lesser extent the BAR-Honda) is reputed to have one of the top budgets... yet they languish near the back half of the field most days.

By nature of the fact that each team must design and build their own cars, F1 is inherently different from other forms of racing and can't be made "equal" IMO. While all teams are held to a set of rules, each team designer's interpretation of the rules means that a car can be either mediocre, or light years ahead of the pack. The designers are just as important to the top teams as the drivers. Adrian Newey has made a career hopping from shop to shop, pulling the cars he designs up the grid with his appearance.

At the moment, it appears that only Juan Pablo Montoya is capable of challenging M. Schumacher. Most of the other drivers defer to Michael and his aggressive tactics, his brother Ralf, especially. While J.P. Montoya is arrogant and stubborn enough to not be intimidated at the German. It least when Prost and Senna were around, they were closely matched in skills (if completely different in temperment). Hence the races were closer.

I think it's true that the cars are more important a factor than the drivers, if that's what you're saying. When Williams was in it's heyday, drivers would win championships in his cars, only to fall to midpack (or worse) once F. Williams refused to pay the champion what he demanded for year two. (Nigel Mansell, Damon Hill, Alain Prost, et al.) Other drivers would then gladly hop into the Williams, and do well. Such as R. Schumacher did when Villeneuve left, and Montoya is now doing. Montoya will win a championship soon (next 1-3 years, IMO) with Williams, and will then get the boot because Williams won't meet driver's salary demands. If Montoya then jumps to a better ride (Ferrari or McLaren) he might do well. If not, he'll fall to midpack like all the others.

I expect M. Schumacher will retire once he breaks Fangio's championship record.

Just babbling.

 

I think most in F1 would agree that BMW has had the better machine for the previous and current year. Michael keeps winning because he IS the best driver. Plain and simple. You are watching history being made every time he wins. No one has ever driven as well as he does.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, Rick...

I gave this whole subject more thought over the weekend. The reason I think M.Schumacher is the best is because he's the closest we've seen to a perfect blend of aggression and precision.

For example. Ayrton Senna was known for his "emotional" driving style. He drove with a verve that often placed him over the limit. Some liked and admired his passionate style, yet others considered him reckless and unpredictable. While it is one thing to drive with your heart (like Mansell), Senna's hot-blooded, Latin personna often let his heart get the better of him, such as the time he purposefully put himself and Prost off at the first turn in Suzuka. I always worried for Senna and those around him he often put at risk. I thought he would turn out to be the greatest, if he didn't kill himself, first. In the end, I think that worry was justified.

Senna's polar opposite was Alain Prost. "The professor" seldom showed his emotions on the track. Instead, he was the pinnacle of methodical precision, cutting apexes so precisely, he was often accused of "looking slow" as he posted one fast lap after another. Prost seldom took risks (didn't like driving in the wet) and often was criticized for it. His races wins had all the excitement of a metronome. There were times he lapped the entire field, save himself, of course. Thoroughly efficient, devoid of any excitement.

IMO, it's no coincidence that Michael Schumacher is blasting past these two predecessors to set all the records. He has the necessary precision to drone around the track like a Prost robot, soliciting the same "he looks slow" remarks from the race commentators (making some spectators bored). But he also has a sense of aggression/emotionalism that puts the other drivers off. They seem to make room for him to pass just like they did for Senna ("Better let this guy go or he'll take me out").

His slashing style, and his penchant for setting up his car on the knife-edge of oversteer, puts him in a position of catching his car over and over again. But he always seems to catch it before he spins with that Prost-like sense of precision.

So, in essence, M.Schumacher's driving skill combines the best of Prost/Senna in a package that is nearly invincible. While I would like to see someone give him a real challenge, most times we're left to admire his demonstration of skills, instead. I realize that bores some people to tears. But, as you said, Rick, he's now setting a new record with every race win.

 

I personally love F1 racing, it is my favorite.

Basketball is an extremely boring sport, but when Michael Jordan is on the court basketball suddenly becomes exciting. Everyone had to of watched a Bull's game at one time or another when Jordan was still there, but when Jordan retired from basketball, the sport declined by a severe amount.

Whilst there are numerous F1 drivers whom are very good, Schumacher is among the best of the best. He is the THE man to beat.

I beleive that Formula 1 racing is the second largest spectator sport in the world aside from soccer. Nearly everyone in every country watches F1 racing except for the USA. Too bad more than half of our country are rednecks and do not know how to negotiate multiple left and right turns rather than just left turns. Those NASCAR races at Watkins Glen and other road tracks are absolute jokes. Atleast we have the American Le Mans Series and CART... although they are nowhere as exciting as F1, they are still exciting.

Formula 1 is the pinnacle of Racing, numerous CART drivers have gone to F1.

 

i would have to disagree with you accord....

it might be your opinion that basketball is boring but just because michael jordan is on the court does not make it somehow more spectacular and when he's off it's mediocre.....

if you have ever played organize ball you would understand the different aspects of the game and hopefully be able to enjoy it more....if not i'm sure there are a lot of websites that will give you an idea into how organized basketball actually works....playing ball with a ref and 9 other players is completely different than playing a pickup game at the gym.....

next time you sit down and watch the lakers or whatever team that you like don't always concentrate on the player with the ball....look at his teammates and try to understand what they are doing....it is how the offensive movement is done that is the beauty of the game....yes the occasional dunks and drives are a blast to watch but to win you must win as a TEAM....and i don't care how much you argue with me about jordan....i still believe that he needed the team he had with scottie, kukoc, rodman, paxton, jackson, to be able to win the six rings that he has.....

take the lakers for example: when they come down the court watch o'neal move into the post position with two players outside the 3-point arc thereby creating a triangle on the strong side...the other two players are on the weak side and also outside the three point ring.....as the ball is dumped into o'neal the players on the strong side rotate to the weakside with either kobe or the PF at the post to create another triangle....there are many variations to this that the lakers run but in essence the system is built on the fact that shaq draws the double team which creates pockets for other players to either drive or play inside out basketball....the triangle offense has a lot of ball movement but very little human movement.....

as for F1 and michael being the best....i have no doubt that he is perhaps the best F1 driver to ever hold a steering wheel but the consistency that he has is ridiculous.....no one can be that consistent.....i want to see him repeat his performance in a say a jaguar.....doubt that he can......

 

Schumacher took the Benetton team from mediocrity in 93-94 to his first World Championship. He might not win in today's Jaguar, but I'd wager he'd be on the podium (if the car will finish). Again, I'm NOT a Schumacher fan.

You say no one can be that consistent... but all you have to do is watch to see that he is. He's earned the priviledge of driving the best cars. It's the same in other forms of racing, even NASCAR... the best drivers get the best rides.

 

i agree that the best drivers get the best rides but even in NASCAR no one is that consistent....and in consistency i mean a podium finish every damn time he gets on a race track....it doesn't matter if it's this year's car or last year's....he still wins....and check out who's in second and third....always and i mean always mclaren and williams....now don't tell me that ferrari, mclaren and williams have drivers that are so consistent that they always finish that way?....i certainly doubt that....i agree that schumacher is damn good but not THAT good....i've always thought of racing as...lets see who's the better driver...not who can shell out the most money....i don't care what you say about Honda having the highest budget....it seems clear to me ferrari, mclaren, and williams spend the most money on their respective teams and that's why they place all the time.....

i agree that the designers play a very critical role in the team but the FIA should have more stringent rules when it come to building a car.....there should not be such a discrepancy between teams....i think more than anything schumacher defines ferrari rather than the other way around....and if that is the case the podium finishes should show driver talent rather than who's got the deepest pockets....

 

There now, I think you've got it. The teams with the most resources (money) can afford the best designers, the best manufacturing facilities, the latest and best CNC machines, the best carbon fiber curing ovens, the best wind tunnels, the best drivers and test drivers, the best testing and diagnosing computers, etc.

FIA's rule book is just as thick as NASCAR's, if not thicker. FIA tries to control expenses with limited testing sessions, etc. But they choose not to level the playing field, entirely. It's bad for business. F1, first and foremost, is entertainment. And the sponsors pay top dollar to have the entertainment in their TV venues, etc. This money feeds the mill, which permits the teams to buy the best they can afford with their piece of the pie. The higher you finish each race, the more money you get. Lower finishers get less money, not more, which keeps them down.

F1 constructors who spend scores of Millions aren't interested in the organizers rolling dice each week to determine who wins. In return for their investment, they want the most return, just like any other business.

 

I believe that in 2001 Formula 1 surpassed soccer to become the largest spectator sport in the world. Also, Mr. Schumacher is the highest paid athlete in the world, with a 2001 annual income estimate at 80 million dollars.

 

sigh...i guess you're right about the money thing....just can't help but feel a little disappointed with a sport that has so much technology fused into it and yet the races are never that interesting to watch except for the first few laps as those usually involve great "racing" not just schumacher out in front looking bored....or how rubins plans to run the race with a two stop or one stop since he's burning up all his fuel trying to catch up after his front wing gets taken off by a wild montoya or something....oh well back to watching le mans racing....

 

Some interesting trivia:

• A F1 car can got to 0 to 100mph and back to 0 in 4 seconds.
• The F1 Ferrari engine can rev to over 17,000 rpm.
• A F1 car is made up of 80,000 components, if it were assembled 99.9% correctly, it would start the race with 80 things wrong.
• The F1 brakes provide 4Gs of stopping power (1G is typical maximum for a road car).
• At 550kg a F1 car is less than half the weight of a classical (not new) Mini.
• A F1 car typically gets about 4 MPG.
• A F1 car costs between 2-5 million dollars to build.

For comparison to the last bullet. A NASCAR car costs around $100,000 to build. A CART car costs around $500,000 to build.

 

Angel_Dust, KR only started in F1 last year, and was so good that his contract was picked up by Ron Dennis. MS is brilliant, even with a mediocre car. Look back at Malaysia, he was in absolutely dead last and still managed a podium finish. RB, his team mate is a great driver but truth be told, any of the great drivers in RB's shoes would be just as good. JPM is NOT as talented as Ralph. He's probably as good as Jaque. Personally I would love to see Geoff Gordon behind the wheel of an F1 car. I think he is talented enough for a ride. The main point to remember regarding the F1 team budgets is that a major portion does go into R&D of new and exotic materials and designs (Wind Tunnels are not cheap), which maybe one day will be found on the Space Shuttle. Ferrari is a NASA contractor. But for their efforts and Michaels genius, they deserve where they are right now, at the top.

 

Here is a test for REAL F1 fans!

F1 Sanity Test

 

LOL. I've seen this test before but I must still be insane

 

Yesterday's race at Imola... Now THAT was booooooring!

 

tell me about it.....everybody was wondering how many stops...how many stops....and next thing you know it.....guess who's in first AGAIN.....schumacher.....big surprise there....oh well maybe next race in two weeks will be a bit more exciting....

 

I always enjoy the race at Imola... at least seeing the race course. That circuit is neat to drive in GP3, or at least it was until they butchered up Tamburello into two chicanes. I'm sorry that Senna died there, but that's no reason to alter the course that badly. They keep complaining there's no room to pass, but then they install chicanes to hold down speed. In this case, the chicanes eliminate that traditional braking zone from Tamburello into Tosa. Then they wonder why you find the races boring. Go figure.