| Author | Message | ||
| Gene Agatep (Gagatep)
New member Username: Gagatep Post Number: 8 Registered: 8-2002 |
Neither MS nor F could have done it without each other. This is an absolute TEAM effort. To have a TEAM at this high caliber is astounding. I'd love to build a team even half as good as theirs in business situations. Everyone is working primarily for the interest of the team before secondarily for themselves. Taking Irvine out and Barichello in was a great move due to the pesuance of team development. | ||
| Matt Lemus (Mlemus)
Junior Member Username: Mlemus Post Number: 80 Registered: 8-2002 |
Prost and Mansell did not have the car MS has. Remember during the Prost and Mansell area, they were still perfecting the f-1 trans and 90% of the DNF were gearbox related. | ||
| Dave Penhale (Dapper)
Junior Member Username: Dapper Post Number: 216 Registered: 4-2002 |
Absolutely, no question | ||
| Racer 001 (Mr_0011)
Junior Member Username: Mr_0011 Post Number: 110 Registered: 3-2002 |
Tuff to say. Needless to say it might make the races more interesting. | ||
| Daren L Adkins (Schumi)
Junior Member Username: Schumi Post Number: 51 Registered: 6-2002 |
Ferrari could not have done what they have without MS, no more than MS could have done what he did without Ferrari. Its a spiral of good fortune, timing and money - IMHO. | ||
| Michael Yurinko (Gage)
New member Username: Gage Post Number: 14 Registered: 8-2002 |
I think if Montoya was in a Ferrari he would bring them to the championship. So many times his BMW broke down. RB and JPM would win championships. | ||
| Dave L (Davel)
Junior Member Username: Davel Post Number: 138 Registered: 7-2001 |
Yes they have shown they can win without MS. Rubens WON Austria from the pole on. He passed, gasp...oh my he passed the great MS in Brazil and was leading till the car broke. He had similar luck at Malaysia. He is doing very well in the new car. With Williams doing so poorly anyway the evidence is clear Ferrari could do well this year certainly without MS. It certainly would make for a more intersting series without him. Im bored with F1 now. Its got no panache in its current state. The best racing is really done on Saturday qualifying!!! | ||
| John Moretti (Moretti)
New member Username: Moretti Post Number: 20 Registered: 11-2001 |
Ferrari were rarely at the bottom, as a matter of fact they were the only team in most years to be challenging the others when they were at their best. Ferrari engines have always been near the top and it has been the chassis design (or lack thereof) that has been letting them down . Look at Adrian Newey, everyone wanted to buy him (caused a big argument between McLaren and Jaguar) because they reckoned he was the best but look at his machines this year and last - they're woeful and to top it off they have the handicap of Mercedes engines and RD running the outfit. You wouldn't be in that team for all the tea in China, uh what ? Raikonnen chose McLaren over ferrari ? yeah good pick Kimi  Seriously I think that from Luca down to Ruby the Ferrari outfit is in a class of it's own and it is the forsight of people like Luca who were with Lauda when he was just as dominant that have pulled all these people together and made Ferrari what they are today, not just MS | ||
| Jon P. Kofod (95f355c)
Junior Member Username: 95f355c Post Number: 152 Registered: 8-2001 |
Mansell couldn't do it at Ferrari, Prost couldn't do it at Ferrari, and Alesi was lucky to win one race with the Scuderia. Mansell was a world class driver (World Champion with Williams) and Prost won 3 World Championships and neither had any success at Ferrari. Schumacher took a sub par team to two World Championships with both Benneton and Ferrari. Don't forget he lost two Championships at the last race of the season (vs. Williams and McLaren) and was leading the points championship in 99 when he was injured. He could easily be chasing his 7 or 8th World Championship. My opinion is that no one currently in F1 (or within the past 6 years) could have won the Championship at Ferrari. Hakkinen simply had a better car, as did JV, Hill and even Mansell. All those guys steped into a car that was the best right out of the box (with the exception of Hakkinen). All the above drivers were great but none of them were asked to come to a team that literally had no chance of winning and then turned it around in a few years. Jon | ||
| Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Junior Member Username: Wsawyer Post Number: 169 Registered: 2-2002 |
It takes more than pure driving talent to do what Michael did at Ferrari. The core team that makes Ferrari work are there because MS is there. Could JV do the same? He hasn't done it at BAR. | ||
| John Moretti (Moretti)
New member Username: Moretti Post Number: 19 Registered: 11-2001 |
I think Rory Byrne is the reason Ferrari has the best car now. John Barnard was suppose to be the saviour of Ferrari and they gave him whatever he wanted and all they got were mediocre cars with huge bills attached. Barnard didn't work at the track and this was the biggest problem while Ferrari were in the doldrums. They should never have let those Brits anywhere near their car on those terms, (for those that dont know Barnard refused to work in Italy and ahd Ferrari build him a new complex in Guilford, England which meant everything had to be transfered backwards and forwards from England to Italy for even the smallest changes in design). I have always put the blame for poor cars squarely at the feet of pommy car designers that couldn't design a billycart let alone an F1 car. Why Ferrari thought the poms knew anything about car design is beyond me, the cars were terrible and my GT4 could have flogged Ferraris English designed F1 cars  | ||
| chris (Wrench_turner)
New member Username: Wrench_turner Post Number: 5 Registered: 5-2002 |
do you think that ferrari could still have won a championship based on the performance of the car alone No. No way. No way in hell. Without MS the Ferrari would still be the tank it was in 1994 and MS & Co would be at another team producing the same winning car that is today's Ferrari. | ||
| Mitch Alsup (Mitch_alsup)
New member Username: Mitch_alsup Post Number: 44 Registered: 4-2002 |
Based on the results of the Australian GP--Ferrari can't let Rubens win. | ||
| ross koller (Ross)
Junior Member Username: Ross Post Number: 53 Registered: 3-2002 |
i agree with thomas. ms has brought the whole package together, and by dint of his driving has made it gel. on the other hand, he is easily worth a half second a lap over everyone else consistently over the year. add to that, a fantastic race-sense and helicopter view of how the race is playing out, and then the ability to maximize his own strengths and the weakness of others in the moment, and that gives you the greatest race driver of our era. so i don't think ferrari would have won the championship as soon, or as many times in the last 3 years without him. | ||
| rick catalano (Tatcat)
New member Username: Tatcat Post Number: 22 Registered: 9-2001 |
yes. look when MS was out Irvine did well in the car. there are a few drivers that given the support of the team could do well. Rubens is probaly the best bet. Verstappen could also do well given the right circumstances. but if Ms were driving for a opposing team it would be difficult. | ||
| Thomas Nehlert (Ferrarickx)
New member Username: Ferrarickx Post Number: 14 Registered: 11-2001 |
Without Michael Ferrari could win some races but not the championship. Don't forget that Prost and Mansell did not win the F1 championship. Of course the team is now very good, but it was Michael who has brought Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne from Benetton to Ferrari. His talent and his power and energy were the key to three constructor's and two driver's championships. | ||
| Jack (Gilles27)
New member Username: Gilles27 Post Number: 28 Registered: 3-2002 |
Here's an important question. Is Schumacher driving for someone else, or in this scenario, does he not exist? Because if he's driving for a rival team, chances are he has played an integral role in developing them into what Ferrari is today. I'm sure, with or without MS, Ferrari would have launched an at-any-cost revamping of their F1 team that would have proved successful. But without MS, they wouldn't have dominated the way they have. It definitely takes both. He has had so much to do with the development of the car, that probably most current drivers could drive it and look special. Don't forget that they did employ the likes of Nigel Mansell and Alain Prost, yet didn't rise above the ranks like they have recently. | ||
| Leonard Keyser (Lkeyser)
New member Username: Lkeyser Post Number: 1 Registered: 3-2002 |
I've been following Michael Schumacher since 1994 - It is my opinion that Ferrari could have won a championship without Michael, it just would have taken a lot longer. There is no driver or test driver out there that can evaluate a car or a new part of the car quicker or more accurately | ||
| Nika (Racernika)
Member Username: Racernika Post Number: 341 Registered: 12-2001 |
There are plenty of talented drivers out there. I think Jacques Villeneuve could of brought Ferrari to the championship. Looking at his last couple years in F1 we see how important equipment really is. My biggest debate is if a team should choose talent over money when BOTH are so important - this dealing with support race series - NOT F1. | ||
| Nick (Ferrari_fan)
New member Username: Ferrari_fan Post Number: 9 Registered: 3-2002 |
Guys, a friend of mine asked me the other day that assuming ferrari did not have M. Schumacher in the last 2-3 seasons, do you think that ferrari could still have won a championship based on the performance of the car alone ? Tuff one i thought, the car last year was very reliable and assuming someone like Ervine was driving the car could he have won ? I do understand that winning is based on the driver and the car itself, but last years car was a good one, what do you all think ? |