- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
Lewis Hamilton made the best getaway as the lights went out, and led the Hungarian Grand Prix from there on. Team mate Nico Rosberg was close at times, but never really managed to set up a passing move. Daniel Ricciardo finished third for Red Bull Racing.
Almost all the greats have had a dominant car at one point of there carreer.sprint car76 wrote:Don't forget he had one of the best car designers at the time, rory byrne, who designed all of shumi's title winning cars.
McLaren had a dominant car from '84 till 91, Williams from 92 till 97 but they kept changing drivers. That was much of Schumachers class to stay part of the dominant team for so long.Sonador wrote:Almost all the greats have had a dominant car at one point of there carreer.sprint car76 wrote:Don't forget he had one of the best car designers at the time, rory byrne, who designed all of shumi's title winning cars.
I remember i was just in awe of Shumacher in 96-2000, afer that it became a bit boring
Liked his comback very much, but you could see he was an old man fighting with young and "hungry" people.
I clearly remember when he crasched into the back of Vergne in Singapore, and was standing behind the fence looking just old, and very very tired, a shadow of his former herolike self.
Loved the whole Mika vs Micheal ....
And their storys of how they became World Champions!
Yes, but almost every driver who has dominated F1 had the best car. Hamiton has the best car(by a mile), Vetted the same, etc.sprint car76 wrote:Don't forget he had one of the best car designers at the time, rory byrne, who designed all of shumi's title winning cars.
The track resurfacing may have an effect on laptimes (i.e. bump removal = reduction and different abrasiveness = unknown).godlameroso wrote:Weather update: 40% chance of rain on Sunday, Friday and Saturday should be dry. Qualifying record anyone? Maybe someone gets into the 17's? Considering downforce levels are now pretty much equal to 2012 levels but we have much more powerful engines, and softer compounds. In 2013 Hamilton did a 1:19.388, I don't think they can go below 18's but we'll see.
From another forum:ChrisDanger wrote:The track resurfacing may have an effect on laptimes (i.e. bump removal = reduction and different abrasiveness = unknown).godlameroso wrote:Weather update: 40% chance of rain on Sunday, Friday and Saturday should be dry. Qualifying record anyone? Maybe someone gets into the 17's? Considering downforce levels are now pretty much equal to 2012 levels but we have much more powerful engines, and softer compounds. In 2013 Hamilton did a 1:19.388, I don't think they can go below 18's but we'll see.
The resurfacing has completely gotten rid of those bumps. In the F3 races there this year, the cars were over 2 seconds faster per lap and that was attributed completely to the track resufacing and the ability to take the natural line instead of having to avoid the bumps. There were also over 400 laps taken away during the F3 weekend due to track limits so that may be an issue as well, but i would expect the F1 guys to be much better in that regard.
WTCC pole time also improved from 1:48.8 to 1:46.1 there.
Will the marshals control all the cornes or only some of them like it happened in Silverstone?Juzh wrote:From another forum:ChrisDanger wrote:The track resurfacing may have an effect on laptimes (i.e. bump removal = reduction and different abrasiveness = unknown).godlameroso wrote:Weather update: 40% chance of rain on Sunday, Friday and Saturday should be dry. Qualifying record anyone? Maybe someone gets into the 17's? Considering downforce levels are now pretty much equal to 2012 levels but we have much more powerful engines, and softer compounds. In 2013 Hamilton did a 1:19.388, I don't think they can go below 18's but we'll see.
The resurfacing has completely gotten rid of those bumps. In the F3 races there this year, the cars were over 2 seconds faster per lap and that was attributed completely to the track resufacing and the ability to take the natural line instead of having to avoid the bumps. There were also over 400 laps taken away during the F3 weekend due to track limits so that may be an issue as well, but i would expect the F1 guys to be much better in that regard.WTCC pole time also improved from 1:48.8 to 1:46.1 there.
From a purely theorical point of view, Prost is the best, I mean, he fought for the title almost every season of his career. Many times he's been unlucky (83,84, 88), he didn't reject rivality. He could have won the same amount of WDC as Schumi in fact . He had the ability to analyse the situation, the racecraft, a scientist of the race..Jolle wrote:I mentioned Prost to show the difference in eras. I could of mentioned Piquet.Vasconia wrote:Taking with some historical perspective one could say that Prost was the biggest because of the rivals he had. But people keep saying how great was Senna and at the time underestimating Prost´s qualities.Jolle wrote:
I admire your adoration of Schumacher. But, just for fun, I would suggest you to look for instance at Prost's career, his results, his cars and his teammates.
And I am a huge MSC fan but I think people have been quite unfair with Prost.
With Prost, if he wasn't partnered with WC all of the time at the furious dominant McLaren, he would have been champion from 1984 up to 1991.
But then Senna happened. Car control not seen since Jim Clark.
Schumacher had it reletive easy. The great of the era before just left or died, no dominant drivers at the beginning of his career and that gave him together with Brawn the opertunaty to make one of the most dominant teams like McLaren the years before.
If Brawn had the same way with Schumacher as Dennis did with Prost, he would have been partnered with Alonso and/or Hakkinen instead of Barichello.
Unlike Piquet, Prost and Lauda, Schumacher never had anything to fear from within the team. Not from managers or drivers. That's not a point of criticism but one of things why he was so successful. Building/being part of a team with one single focus.
Schumacher could have won 4 more world championships - 97, 98, 99 and 2006. 98 his car failed on the start (from pole) at the final race; 99 he was leading world championship when he broke his leg and the vastly inferior Irvine took the title to the final race; 2006 he had mechanical issues at the final two races when leading the world championship.Spoutnik wrote:From a purely theorical point of view, Prost is the best, I mean, he fought for the title almost every season of his career. Many times he's been unlucky (83,84, 88), he didn't reject rivality. He could have won the same amount of WDC as Schumi in fact . He had the ability to analyse the situation, the racecraft, a scientist of the race..
Unfortunately, I'm not of this generation, I start watching Formula One with Schumi vs Hakkinen era. And from a non-rational thinking only Senna give me goosebumps everytime I watch those old F1 race/videos/documentary.
f1316 wrote:Schumacher could have won 4 more world championships - 97, 98, 99 and 2006. 98 his car failed on the start (from pole) at the final race; 99 he was leading world championship when he broke his leg and the vastly inferior Irvine took the title to the final race; 2006 he had mechanical issues at the final two races when leading the world championship.Spoutnik wrote:From a purely theorical point of view, Prost is the best, I mean, he fought for the title almost every season of his career. Many times he's been unlucky (83,84, 88), he didn't reject rivality. He could have won the same amount of WDC as Schumi in fact . He had the ability to analyse the situation, the racecraft, a scientist of the race..
Unfortunately, I'm not of this generation, I start watching Formula One with Schumi vs Hakkinen era. And from a non-rational thinking only Senna give me goosebumps everytime I watch those old F1 race/videos/documentary.
These things happened but if Prost was unlucky not to win more championships, Schumacher was just as if not more so.
It's impossible to compare from different eras but actually, in retrospect, his comeback actually showed his greatness: in 2012 he was by and large faster than Rosberg (you have to go back and watch the whole season to see all the mechanical issues and grosjean-caused crashes that befell him; if you exclude grid penalties he also outqualified him) and that's at 43 against a man who has gone on to compete with the very fastest on equal footing. If he could be that fast at 43, imagine at 23. Pole at Monaco still awesome.
Back to race, I think it'll be interesting. Mercedes still fastest but I think both Ferrari and Red Bull will be close; Vettel was actually quicker than Rosberg last year and they may theoretically be able to do something with having more soft tyres.
2012 could have been a nice farewell year for Michael only with some reliability...f1316 wrote:
Schumacher could have won 4 more world championships - 97, 98, 99 and 2006. 98 his car failed on the start (from pole) at the final race; 99 he was leading world championship when he broke his leg and the vastly inferior Irvine took the title to the final race; 2006 he had mechanical issues at the final two races when leading the world championship.
These things happened but if Prost was unlucky not to win more championships, Schumacher was just as if not more so.
It's impossible to compare from different eras but actually, in retrospect, his comeback actually showed his greatness: in 2012 he was by and large faster than Rosberg (you have to go back and watch the whole season to see all the mechanical issues and grosjean-caused crashes that befell him; if you exclude grid penalties he also outqualified him) and that's at 43 against a man who has gone on to compete with the very fastest on equal footing. If he could be that fast at 43, imagine at 23.
Back to race, I think it'll be interesting. Mercedes still fastest but I think both Ferrari and Red Bull will be close; Vettel was actually quicker than Rosberg last year and they may theoretically be able to do something with having more soft tyres.
