"The ugly duckling", the story of Benetton's B195

Originally posted by Foxbat
Except it wasn't perfect for Schumacher, and the car wasn't "developed around" Schumacher. It was developed as an evolution from a design that predated Schumachers arrival.

So you think the B195 Benetton was derived from the 1990 Benetton? Perhaps from the original Toleman?

and the Renault engine that needed to be shoehorned in the back.

True, that caused problems.

And I seriously doubt that Schumacher ever wanted a car that handled "diabolically"

Of course not but that is how his car felt on friday before Barcelona's qualifying.

only to fend of the likes of Johnny Herbert and Jos Verstappen. But maybe he wanted to be the new Mansell and he asked Rory to design a car that would give him lots of opportunity to whine

As I've said before it is much more a question of car development during the season, which is why Schumacher is normally not that quicker than his teammates at the start of the season.


Do you realise that Bergers entire career consisted in jumping from team-to-team, always just jumping into whatever was available.. it was only with Benneton that this was a problem. And given the fact that it caused Schumacher lots of problems as well I seriously doubt it was developed to suit Schumachers driving style.

Not developed to suit Schumacher's driving style? The B195 was not developed during the season to suit Schumacher's driving style? Do you really believe that?

So when Schumacher complained for example of too much oversteer in high speed turns Byrne decided to focus on fixing grip in the low speed turns instead because it suited some generic driver better?

I seriously doubt that setup changes can cure design flaws/features.

Who said anything about the B195 having major design flaws? Just look at Montoya in Spa last year. Exactly the same thing happened. He found some setup changes by stiffening the front of the car that transformed the FW23 to suit his driving style and trashed Ralf for the reminder of the season. It happens and it happened to Schumacher in Barcelona 1995.

Originally posted by karlth


Not only around 1 second faster but also in a much slower car. Do you really think Schumacher is Superman on vacation from planet Krypton?

its not about what i beleive,its what i see.
Michael was 1.5 seconds faster than irvine in qualifying MANY times in 96,so why couldnt be blow hill away?

I notice your using 1 race as evidence the benetton was the faster car of 95
That doesnt work im afraid.

Originally posted by Arrow
its not about what i beleive,its what i see.
Michael was 1.5 seconds faster than irvine in qualifying MANY times in 96,so why couldnt be blow hill away?

So you would think that Schumacher was on average around 1.5s faster than Hill purely on pace?

I notice your using 1 race as evidence the benetton was the faster car of 95
That doesnt work im afraid.

Spain and Monaco. Everything changed after that, especially Hill's driving that went steeply downhill.

Originally posted by karlth


Not only around 1 second faster but also in a much slower car. Do you really think Schumacher is Superman on vacation from planet Krypton?

Krypton was destroyed in a cataclystic explosion, if he is Superman than he would be on permanent vacation

Originally posted by Foxbat


Krypton was destroyed in a cataclystic explosion, if he is Superman than he would be on permanent vacation

If he is Superman then Barrichello would have been vacationing on Krypton when it exploded.

Originally posted by karlth

So you would think that Schumacher was on average around 1.5s faster than Hill purely on pace?[/B]

Whats average got to do with it??
We are talking about 1 race.
Do i beleive michael could be confortabley faster than hill in a slower car.
Of course.
He proved that 100 times during his battles with hill.

Originally posted by karlth

Spain and Monaco. Everything changed after that, especially Hill's driving that went steeply downhill. [/B]

Isnt that the whole point??
Hill drove **** and was trounced by an inferior car?
Seems like you agree after all.

Well,

to judge Karth skill you have only to go back to pre season and the first races. Read his posts about the F2002, laugh, and then give up discussing with him.

Originally posted by Arrow
Do i beleive michael could be confortabley faster than hill in a slower car.

The problem is that when Schumacher has competed in an equal car with hardly any advantage in testing he has barely been faster than his competitors. Schumacher's so called advantage in pace has been due to him enjoying the luxury of his team's exclusive focus. His real advantage lies elsewhere than in pure pace.

Originally posted by Garagiste


Right, so you take both Williams and MS out of the race and Herbert wins both times.
That on its own makes a pretty good case for the B195 being the second best car on the grid.

Its not too good to measure a car on only two GPs performances is it?

Remember, how Herbert won in Monza, everybody dropped out in front of him. And Ferraris favourite track is not Silverstone.
Its OK to say that the B195 was indeed a very fast car, but it was very nervous on the limit.
The Ferrari 412T2 was a very nice handling car, but that had other limitations one obvious being the too heavy and fuel eating V12 that didnt even had enough power in the first part of the season compared to the Renaults. But Herberts performances are not a good indicator of the B195 IMO, he could have done a better job if the car was setup and improved after his indications.

Its propably appropriate to say that the Williams, Ferrari and the Benetton were the best 3 cars that year by a mile.

Villeneuve is 5s a lap slower than anybody else in F1 circus (whiwh make the bar 4s faster than the Ferrari). But we don't see it cos he has a car designed around him, and teamates are either screwed, or they can't adapt to a car made for somebody else.

Prove me wrong, Karlth, and take me seriously, because if you don't take me seriously, how can you expect someone to take you seriously?

Originally posted by B.Verkiler
Villeneuve is 5s a lap slower than anybody else in F1 circus (whiwh make the bar 4s faster than the Ferrari). But we don't see it cos he has a car designed around him, and teamates are either screwed, or they can't adapt to a car made for somebody else.

Prove me wrong, Karlth, and take me seriously, because if you don't take me seriously, how can you expect someone to take you seriously?

Villeneuve is an equal #1 to Panis who probably tests more than Jacques.

I think some of you fanboys should start admitting that Ferrari as Benetton before it is a one man team. Even Michael himself admits it.

Originally posted by karlth


The problem is that when Schumacher has competed in an equal car with hardly any advantage in testing he has barely been faster than his competitors. Schumacher's so called advantage in pace has been due to him enjoying the luxury of his team's exclusive focus. His real advantage lies elsewhere than in pure pace.

The problem is that when Schumacher has competed in an equal car with hardly any advantage in testing he has barely been faster than his competitors.

When has that been other than when he competed agaisnt his teammates??

Whats the better and more accurate assement of "equal cars"
Educated guessing and estimations of 2 drivers in different teams or 2 drivers in the same team with the same car??

Originally posted by Arrow


yes.
It was a test
Did you notice that irvine used to thrash herbert when they were team mates?
And michael used to thrash irvine.

You add it up.

Different cars, different eras, Johnny did not like groove tires at all.

I thin you can not make such comparisons. It does not work kile that

Originally posted by Sir George Head
to judge Karth skill you have only to go back to pre season and the first races. Read his posts about the F2002, laugh, and then give up discussing with him.

Any reasonable comments you'd like to make to this thread or are you simply pissed at life in general?

Originally posted by Sir George Head
Well,

to judge Karth skill you have only to go back to pre season and the first races. Read his posts about the F2002, laugh, and then give up discussing with him.

here here, true

We know why this thread was created, now don't we? Someone is very keen in re-writing history

Not worth wasting time and energy. Like everything changed after 1 race!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arrow
When has that been other than when he competed agaisnt his teammates??

Group C. Frentzen was considered the faster driver.
The Sauber test. Herbert seemed to have similar pace.
The Touring car races, considerably slower than his teammates.

I simply cannot remember a single instance when Schumacher jumped into a car and dominated his competitor. Perhaps the 1991 Spa race coming closest to it.

As I said I think Schumacher's advantage lies not in his pace.

Originally posted by The RedBaron


here here, true

We know why this thread was created, now don't we? Someone is very keen in re-writing history

Not worth wasting time and energy. Like everything changed after 1 race!!

Still reading my posts? I thought you had promised to ignore them?

Malaysia 1999...first race back after leg break, takes pole and destroys the field!!

Originally posted by karlth
How come Herbert was some seconds of Schumacher's pace at Benetton but during Michael's one off test in the Sauber, Herbert seemed just as quick? Any ideas?

Originally posted by karlth
No but what I'm saying is that it is unrealistic for a top level to jump into a car that has been developed around another driver and be immediately competitive.

Not that I agree, but by your own theory, you answered yourself. And you called MS unreal at the same time.;)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by karlth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arrow
When has that been other than when he competed agaisnt his teammates??

Group C. Frentzen was considered the faster driver.
The Sauber test. Herbert seemed to have similar pace.
The Touring car races, considerably slower than his teammates.

I simply cannot remember a single instance when Schumacher jumped into a car and dominated his competitor. Perhaps the 1991 Spa race coming closest to it.

As I said I think Schumacher's advantage lies not in his pace. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]I simply cannot remember a single instance when Schumacher jumped into a car and dominated his competitor. Perhaps the 1991 Spa race coming closest to it.[/QUOTE]

Yeh your right
So why doesnt spa 91 or the 91 races count while group C and touring cars do??

We are talking about F1 after all arent we???
What has more relevance??

Originally posted by Smooth
Not that I agree, but by your own theory, you answered yourself. And you called MS unreal at the same time.;)

True but one point worth mentioning of course is that Sauber had a Ferrari engine and eletronics and more importantly it was on Schumacher's test track.

If Schumacher was really some seconds ahead of Herbert in pace, based on 1995, why was he at best equal in that test?

Aftre your pre-season predictions on the F2002, who could ever take you again seriously?

Keep trying, it's quite amusing to watch!

Originally posted by Arrow



Yeh your right
So why doesnt spa 91 or the 91 races count while group C and touring cars do??

We are talking about F1 after all arent we???
What has more relevance??

The Sauber test as well, F1 too.

Do you remember another example Schumacher's dominance apart from his pace against De Cesaris at Spa in 1991? I really don't.

Originally posted by karlth


The problem is that when Schumacher has competed in an equal car with hardly any advantage in testing he has barely been faster than his competitors. Schumacher's so called advantage in pace has been due to him enjoying the luxury of his team's exclusive focus. His real advantage lies elsewhere than in pure pace.

I think what has been argued, and what we have heard from many in the F1 circus, including Berger's quotes in this thread, are that MS can get to that pace consistently over a race distance. Something I believe 100%. I don't think he is the fastest driver over a lap or two, nor the most naturally gifted, on the grid. His cornerstone is the ability to find a pace that is damn close to anyones best, and stay on it longer than anyone else.

Read some quotes from his teammates. Rubens has stated the same: The hardest part about working with Schumacher is his consistency.

Originally posted by The RedBaron
Keep trying, it's quite amusing to watch!

If you would just offer some valued criticism to this thread instead of these truly feeble attempts at insults then perhaps you would be taken seriously.

Originally posted by karlth


The Sauber test as well, F1 too.

Do you remember another example Schumacher's dominance apart from his pace against De Cesaris at Spa in 1991? I really don't.

What about the rest of the 91 races where he was clearly faster than piquet?

Originally posted by Smooth
Read some quotes from his teammates. Rubens has stated the same: The hardest part about working with Schumacher is his consistency.

True, one his greatest assets especially in the early 90s when his fitness level extraordinary compared to his competitors. I don't think though that is the case anymore.

Originally posted by karlth




True but one point worth mentioning of course is that Sauber had a Ferrari engine and eletronics and more importantly it was on Schumacher's test track.

If Schumacher was really some seconds ahead of Herbert in pace, based on 1995, why was he at best equal in that test?

He was quicker than JH right off the bat. After he left JH put in a lot of laps to get to his best time. I would be willing to bet Schumacher had many more laps quicker than Johnny. But, in the end, it was a test, and they were working toward a very specific goal. One that they, apparently, achieved. Schumacher came in, set a benchmark, and left Johnny to try to reach it. He did. Good for him. Do we know anything about the setup/tires/track conditions/how many laps they did to get to a time, what setup changes they did, etc....? I don't think it means anything, but if you do, should we start judging testing times as proof of a drivers competence over their teammate?

Originally posted by Arrow


What about the rest of the 91 races where he was clearly faster than piquet?

He wasn't clearly faster than Piquet. He was a bit quicker in qualifying but in the races it seemed Piquet more often than not had the edge.

Originally posted by karlth


He wasn't clearly faster than Piquet. He was a bit quicker in qualifying but in the races it seemed Piquet more often than not had the edge.

What about his first season with ferrari??
Both him and irvine were new to the team and car.

Do you honestly beleive that a few more test sessions explains away the 1.5 seconds a lap advantage he had over irvine?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smooth
He was quicker than JH right off the bat. After he left JH put in a lot of laps to get to his best time.

Schumacher started by lapping at the same pace as Herbert and then banged in some quick laps in the end which Herbert bettered the next day.

Now was Schumacher slightly quicker or perhaps Herbert? No matter, the point is that it makes it very hard explain the seconds that was the difference in 1995. Can you?

I don't think it means anything, but if you do, should we start judging testing times as proof of a drivers competence over their teammate?

This was not a normal test session by any means. Sauber wanted to know how quick his car could go, I seriously doubt he wanted Michael to do some gearbox endurance runs.

Originally posted by karlth


True, one his greatest assets especially in the early 90s when his fitness level extraordinary compared to his competitors. I don't think though that is the case anymore.

I agree it was part of his success when he broke into F1, and it is one reason, I believe, that Senna saw him as a ral threat. Re-fueling turned F1 into a series of sprint races, which played into Schumachers hands. It is why I am with the minority who think that Senna/Schumacher in 1994 would have been close, not the Senna whitewash we are told it would have been.


I think that his advantage was less important until the new regs and the tire war started. The car is more physically demanding to drive now. However, many drivers have followed his lead, and have become more fit, though I still rate him pretty close to the top of that pile.

Originally posted by karlth
As I said I think Schumacher's advantage lies not in his pace.

If I understand previous posts from you right than your argument is that Schumacher built one-man teams around him, hence his success. Then you may enlighten us why those intelligent men at Ferrari and Benetton...

a) agreed to make him number one and
b) to throw this awful lot of money on him

when they had/have a car at their disposal which would have brought equal success to other (and cheaper) drivers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arrow
What about his first season with ferrari??
Both him and irvine were new to the team and car.

Irvine outqualified him in Melbourne and was just as fast if not faster in the pre season testing sessions. I'm not totally sure but I think Irvine had at most one or two test sessions after Melbourne until mid season that year.

Now I'm not saying that Irvine is faster than Schumacher but a difference of 1.5s is not representive of their respective pace.

Originally posted by Uwe

If I understand previous posts from you right than your argument is that Schumacher built one-man teams around him, hence his success. Then you may enlighten us why those intelligent men at Ferrari and Benetton...

a) agreed to make him number one and
b) to throw this awful lot of money on him

when they had/have a car at their disposal which would have brought equal success to other (and cheaper) drivers. [/QUOTE]

Because as a total package he is the best driver to have in the world. Focusing on Irvine or Herbert would not have brought the same success.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by karlth
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Smooth
He was quicker than JH right off the bat. After he left JH put in a lot of laps to get to his best time.

Schumacher started by lapping at the same pace as Herbert and then banged in some quick laps in the end which Herbert bettered the next day.

Now was Schumacher slightly quicker or perhaps Herbert? No matter, the point is that it makes it very hard explain the seconds that was the difference in 1995. Can you?

I don't think it means anything, but if you do, should we start judging testing times as proof of a drivers competence over their teammate?

This was not a normal test session by any means. Sauber wanted to know how quick his car could go, I seriously doubt he wanted Michael to do some gearbox endurance runs. [/QUOTE]

You would think the fact that michael was just as fast as herbert driving a car totally foreign to him would be clear evidence of him being far faster than herbert.

isnt this the direct opposite to how it was at benetton?
This time it was michael driving a car foreign to him and herbert a car he raced and tested all year.
Wonder why herbert wasnt flogging michael the same way?
You seem to think testing gives suck an ENormous advantage yet it didnt helo herbert

Originally posted by Arrow
You would think the fact that michael was just as fast as herbert driving a car totally foreign to him would be clear evidence of him being far faster than herbert.

isnt this the direct opposite to how it was at benetton?
This time it was michael driving a car foreign to him and herbert a car he raced and tested all year.
Wonder why herbert wasnt flogging michael the same way?
You seem to think testing gives suck an ENormous advantage yet it didnt helo herbert

Two very important points worth mentioning. Firstly the Sauber had a Ferrari engine, a Ferrari gearbox and the same eletronics as the Ferrari, it was not a totally foreign car. Secondly Michael had hundreds of laps, if not thousands, more experience at Fiorano than Herbert.

Originally posted by karlth

Because as a total package he is the best driver to have in the world. Focusing on Irvine or Herbert would not have brought the same success.

So what are his real strengths in your opinion? "Total package" is - in my view - an abstract expression where you can read all and nothing from.

Originally posted by karlth
Originally posted by Arrow
You would think the fact that michael was just as fast as herbert driving a car totally foreign to him would be clear evidence of him being far faster than herbert.

isnt this the direct opposite to how it was at benetton?
This time it was michael driving a car foreign to him and herbert a car he raced and tested all year.
Wonder why herbert wasnt flogging michael the same way?
You seem to think testing gives suck an ENormous advantage yet it didnt helo herbert

Two very important points worth mentioning. Firstly the Sauber had a Ferrari engine, a Ferrari gearbox and the same eletronics as the Ferrari, it was not a totally foreign car. Secondly Michael had hundreds of laps, if not thousands, more experience at Fiorano than Herbert.

Knowing the ferrari engine and gearbox means ****.
Theu have nothing to do with handling.That car was foreign to him.

Originally posted by Uwe

So what are his real strengths in your opinion? "Total package" is - in my view - an abstract expression where you can read all and nothing from.

Schumacher's real strengths?

Work ethic, fitness, ambition, aggressiveness, bravery and of course pace but I don't think it is in any way extraordinary. He is just one of the fastest drivers on the grid.

Originally posted by Arrow
Knowing the ferrari engine and gearbox means ****.
Theu have nothing to do with handling.That car was foreign to him.

I must backtrack on the gearbox. Sauber might have been using a none Ferrari one.

Heard of engine driveability?

Originally posted by karlth
Group C. Frentzen was considered the faster driver.
The Sauber test. Herbert seemed to have similar pace.
The Touring car races, considerably slower than his teammates.

He was very close to Frentzen and Wendlinger when they raced together, the three of them being germany's new hope. Frentzen plateaud in F1 Schumi didn't. But you need only look at Frentzens consistently good performances in lesser teams (!) to see he is really fast.
As for DTM, Schumacher did that part time. So I don't think these examples mean very much other than that they show that MS was actually pretty fast, but maybe not the greatest sportscar driver.
In the Sauber test it was MS who raised the bar (by a second) even if Herbie later managed to get the same times.

As I said I think Schumacher's advantage lies not in his pace.

To deny that MS is fast is folly, and he is more consistently fast than other drivers. Maybe his other advantadges are even bigger, but pace is not a weak point.
[EDIT]Ok, I see that that is what you meant.

Originally posted by karlth


I must backtrack on the gearbox. Sauber might have been using a none Ferrari one.

Heard of engine driveability?

Wasn't Petronas doing the electronics and development on the engine at the time? The ultimate goal was after all to be able to set up their own engine production -which obviously never actually happened.

Originally posted by karlth
Now was Schumacher slightly quicker or perhaps Herbert? No matter, the point is that it makes it very hard explain the seconds that was the difference in 1995. Can you?

The worse the car handles the more magnified the difference in skill

Originally posted by karlth
As I said I think Schumacher's advantage lies not in his pace.

I think MS knows what he wants from the car, his priority is a very stiff front, after that he manages to sort out the rest. I think MSs pace is very good right from the word go, but he knows how to make a car faster, what he needs to change setup wise. If he gets it from the car, he is very difficult to beat. People often forget how important setup really is.

He most often gets his set up perfect for race conditions.

Everybody knows that when the conditions change (air/track temperature, wind,...), you have to change your car setup, so it is adjusted to the track. The teams know how to do this very fast, but most of the drivers dont. Apart from MS there are very few who can judge right what to do. MS knows on the 1st, at most the 2nd lap what to change. He has a very good feel for the car. Drivers alter the setup on Friday, Saturday and Sunday morning for the race when conditions are similar but not quite the same. Only some of them are so brave to change the setup, just before the race. When the clock strikes 1330 MSs time comes. By 1345 he gets the setup just about right for the race. Less than 15 minutes, at most 3 laps. Thats when the conditions are the closest to that of the race.
But how much time does he find like this? maybe .3 to .5 seconds. Of course tyres are saved better.

How many times did we see McLaren, Williams to improve constantly through qualifying? Almost always. Whereas MS seemed to be just on the cars maximum pace on only his 2nd qualifying lap.
And the Ferrai and Benetton were most of the time the more difficult cars to setup compared to the Newey mobiles.


Tests the F3000 car of David Brabham at Snetterton, he outpaces Brabham after only a couple of laps. MS raced once in Japanese F3000 (28July 1991) at Sugo. He qualified 2nd and finished 2nd behind Ross Cheever. Same with the 91Jordan, test it at Silverstone short course and is right on the pace from the fourth lap. He was told to slow down. In Fridays first free practice at Spa where he never drove before after his first stint Nick Burrows said the following sentence: We have a gem here .

F1Racing March 98, pp16, by Peter Windsor:

Here he was in Japan, with the teams best race engineer and mechanic on his side, with everything to gain and nothing to lose. Michael took a long time to record a lap.

Out of the pits - in. 2mm higher with the front preload
Out of the pits - in. Softer front bar.
Out of the pits - in. Stiffen front springs by 150lb
Out of the pits - in. Lower front ride height by 2-3mm. Back to the original front springs. Stiffer front bar
Out of the pits - in. Softer front springs (again)

Lunch break. Calm the tyre engineers, who are concerned that he has still not recorded a lap time.
More front wing, applied with Gurney flap. Longer 2nd 3rd 4th gear ratios.

Out of the pits - in. Front ride height down 2mm. Take away Gurneys. Take rebound out.
One flying lap - second quickest and fastest overall in afternoon session.
Finish second. Job done.

.
.
.

Michael would live with more understeer than your Prosts and Mansells and then he would suddenly allow the car to bite at the rear, which massive mid corner weight transfer. The trick is to do this without destroying the rear tires. By crook or by diff, MS has achieved this, just as he was achieving it then in F3000. Unique even amongst turn-in drivers.

Originally posted by Foxbat


This is quite obviously nonsense, the guy couldn't keep the damn car on the track and was too slow. The only thing that caused this alleged genius to turn a car that was doggy-doo in his hands into a competitor with the Williams. Read the article "Schumacher tried some radical setup changes by copying parts of Schumacher's teammate Johnny Herbert's setup [..] Schumacher went from having struggled to keep up with the Ferraris and Williams in first qualifying to taking pole position by a massive 0.6s margin over Damon Hill."

Yes MS used Herberts setup and took pole by 0.6s.

WHERE WAS HERBERT ?

Originally posted by Mark Beckman
Yes MS used Herberts setup and took pole by 0.6s.

WHERE WAS HERBERT ?

Not testing that's for sure.

He could have the best setup in the world but if he isn't confident in the car he isn't going anywhere.

Originally posted by Arrow


Where was the second difference?
Hill was only 25 seconds behind michael when he hit trouble near the end.

Thats more like half a second a lap slower.

Irvine was regularily 1 second a lap slower over a race distance during 96,97,98.

And as i said before we saw rubens that much slower 2 weeks ago.
Your memory cant be that bad.

Theres quite few around here who cant remember Spa 2 weeks ago or San Marino this year where MS convincingly thrashed everyone in sight like he was in another World but mention Jerez 1997 or Australia 1994 and see how quickly they all remember.

Originally posted by Sir Frank
He most often gets his set up perfect for race conditions.

That is most likely to do with experience. In his first two years in F1 he wasn't an exceptional racer. In fact as I mentioned earlier, Piquet was a bit faster in 1991 and Brundle seemed to be very near to Michael's pace in 1992.

How many times did we see McLaren, Williams to improve constantly through qualifying? Almost always. Whereas MS seemed to be just on the cars maximum pace on only his 2nd qualifying lap.

Exactly the same as his brother, perhaps the first laps on a clear track suit their understeer "ready" driving style?

The Ferrari since late 2000 at least seems to have a brilliant base setup as Schumacher is immediately on the pace during his first laps in practice but doesn't improve drastically after that. Now the setup used in the beginning of practice is I think calculated and decided more by the engineer than the driver, true?

Tests the F3000 car of David Brabham at Snetterton, he outpaces Brabham after only a couple of laps.

Interesting, I don't remember reading about that test. When did it take place?

MS raced once in Japanese F3000 (28July 1991) at Sugo. He qualified 2nd and finished 2nd behind Ross Cheever.

Tim Scott of Jordan talking about Schumacher's CV before the Jordan 1991 test at Silverstone: "... a lacklustre one-off F3000 appearance in the Nippon Championship at Sugo cast a shadow."

I don't know why he considered 2nd place a lacklustre placing.

Same with the 91Jordan, test it at Silverstone short course and is right on the pace from the fourth lap.

Tim Scott again: ... but whilst the times were respectable, they were not earth shattering.

Scott was very impressed how calm Schumacher seemed to be in spite of a couple of spins and his fast pace.

Jordan tested Zanardi a few months later and considered him faster although more erratic. Zanardi then tested for Benetton:

He was test driver for Benetton from August 92-on, until he got a ride at
Lotus. He, in fact got his job at Lotus, when he took out Patrese's car, which
was 2 secs slower than Schumi, and immediately went 2/10ths faster than Schumi
had that day. Peter Collins was there that day, and signed him the next week to
replace Hakkinen.

Which as I said makes believe that it is other attributes than pure pace that pole vaulted Michael to the top.

Originally posted by karlth
Originally posted by Sir Frank
He most often gets his set up perfect for race conditions.

That is most likely to do with experience.

Interestingly Sir Frank only posted examples early in MS's career in situation where he ran a car without prior experience, which would seem to contradict the idea that his experience allows him to do this.

In his first two years in F1 he wasn't an exceptional racer. In fact as I mentioned earlier, Piquet was a bit faster in 1991 and Brundle seemed to be very near to Michael's pace in 1992.

This smacks of those Barrichello retrospectives floating around sometime ago, in looking back it seems that the negative is emphasised and the positives are made relative by their current status.
Take 1991, those who still rated de Cesaris as a fast guy were impressed. And outqualifying Moreno in the Benneton didn't hurt either. He then proceeded to immediatly and consistently beat Piquet in qualification and race. Today that means that alleged great MS merely kept pace with 'old man Piquet', but at the time the 3 time world champion was still rated highly.
As for Brundle he ran both Senna and MS close at times, so maybe Senna wasn't an exceptional driver before F1 either?;)

Jordan tested Zanardi a few months later and considered him faster although more erratic.

But in the actual races for Jordan he was well off Andrea's pace, so maybe Jordans initial impression were a tad off.

Zanardi then tested for Benetton:

Who apparently didn't consider him to be baster than MS

He was test driver for Benetton from August 92-on, until he got a ride at
Lotus. He, in fact got his job at Lotus, when he took out Patrese's car, which
was 2 secs slower than Schumi, and immediately went 2/10ths faster than Schumi
had that day. Peter Collins was there that day, and signed him the next week to
replace Hakkinen.

Nice story, but it sounds rather apocryphical. When did this happen, and would you really believe that a team would sign a driver based on one lap in a test session if they didn't have their eye on him already?

Which as I said makes believe that it is other attributes than pure pace that pole vaulted Michael to the top.

Believe what you will, but you're not making a very strong case. And moreover you are pointing out things that are more relevant now then they would have been at the time.
Besides, if it wasn't pace then what other attribute did launch him to the top?