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

Originally posted by karlth


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.

I would say that the combination of all this is extraordinary.

Originally posted by karlth


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

Heard of engine driveability?

Yeah like that has a lot to do with the whole car. What about the 2 cars you are comparing , the williams and benetton from 95. They had the same engine but they where totaly different in handling. The B195 was on the edgey side and the williams smooth.

Originally posted by TAB666
I would say that the combination of all this is extraordinary.

Yes it is.

Originally posted by TAB666
The B195 was on the edgey side and the williams smooth.

Not it seems in Barcelona.

Originally posted by karlth


Not it seems in Barcelona.

That's how it seems perhaps, but from one of your earlier posts: "I could not help but notice how incredibly smooth the #1 Benetton looked (the #2 being shown only on the two pit stops), while nearly everyone else was twitching and sliding all over the road. I can't tell you how many times the phrase "active suspension" crossed my mind, but seeing Schumacher sawing at the wheel dismissed such thoughts."

So was the Benneton a very balanced car, or was MS "looking smooth but going fast"? Seems like the latter to me, given the fact that he was sawing at the wheel.
Unless info about Herbert is forthcoming there is no way we can tell if the B195 may have been very well balanced at Barcelona. And given that we haven't seen any other evidence for the theory that "the Benneton suddenly became balanced and thus the best car of the year" this is all a very big MAYBE.

Originally posted by Foxbat
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.

Do you mean the F3000 test, the Japanese F3000 race and the F1 test?

I have not heard of the F3000 test before but I don't doubt SirFrank so it certainly took place but according to the quotes I gave for some reason the Jordan rep was not impressed with the Japanese race or thought that Schumacher was "earth shatteringly" quick.

What about the other examples not mentioned? DTM, Group C, The Sauber test and even his performance in F3 against Salo and Hakkinen?

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.

De Cesaris, A self described old man Piquet and Moreno. We were hardly talking about the sharp end of the 1991 grid.

As for Brundle he ran both Senna and MS close at times, so maybe Senna wasn't an exceptional driver before F1 either?

Brundle always was a bad qualifier and a good racer. His races against in F3 usually ended by either Senna winning or crashing and Brundle then picking up the scraps.

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

Zanardi did in fact impress at Jordan, he did in fact manage to start his first race and raced convincingly and fast.

Believe what you will, but you're not making a very strong case.

I've mentioned numerous examples of Schumacher failing to dominate in cars that were not developed to his exclusive liking, i.e. like the cars other unfortunate F1 drivers have to use every weekend.

That is my case. He dominates because he is in an exclusive position. There is no other driver currently who enjoys that total attention of the team that he receives but inspite of that his loyal followers seem to think that Schumacher is some seconds faster a lap then the rest of the grid.

Originally posted by Foxbat
So was the Benneton a very balanced car, or was MS "looking smooth but going fast"? Seems like the latter to me, given the fact that he was sawing at the wheel.
Unless info about Herbert is forthcoming there is no way we can tell if the B195 may have been very well balanced at Barcelona. And given that we haven't seen any other evidence for the theory that "the Benneton suddenly became balanced and thus the best car of the year" this is all a very big MAYBE.

"the car went so smoothly today, so perfectly"

Schumacher in the post race conference in Barcelona '95.

Sounds pretty final to me.

Originally posted by karlth


Not it seems in Barcelona.

Sure even an edgey car can look and behave smooth on some tracks. But that doesnt mean its better over the whole season. And it sure looked like MS had to fight the car all season.
You posted that Schumi said the car was "perfect and smooth" yes compared to the cars he had driven before and this car. But if he had driven the F2001 or F2002 before he ran the B195 at spain i promise you he wouldnt have said perfect. And i allso think the Ferrari the year after was handling better in spain. So everything is relative.

Originally posted by TAB666
Sure even an edgey car can look and behave smooth on some tracks. But that doesnt mean its better over the whole season.

You are nearer than many to the point I'm trying to make.

How come that the combination of Schumacher and the B195 which had not been competitive in race pace until Barcelona suddenly became dominant in Barcelona? Now given that Schumacher didn't improve massively as a driver in Barcelona it must have been the car or the circuit but as that domination continued in Monaco, a vastly different circuit, pointed the finger squarely at the car.

I feel that Barcelona was a turning point of the 1995 season and in my opinion turned the B195 into a "swan". Now it can be debated endlessly if the FW17 or the B195 was the stronger car but I think it is fairly obvious that the Benetton was not the tractor that some forum members have hinted at.

Originally posted by karlth

Do you mean the F3000 test, the Japanese F3000 race and the F1 test?

I have not heard of the F3000 test before but I don't doubt SirFrank so it certainly took place but according to the quotes I gave for some reason the Jordan rep was not impressed with the Japanese race or thought that Schumacher was "earth shatteringly" quick.

So what the Jordan rep thought about it (and given that they were hiring a complete unknown I could see why he would be a little sceptical) meant more than what actually happened? And what about the Benneton reps? Surely they must have been a bit less gloomy about Schumachers pace.
Besides we are talking about Schumacher being immediatly on the pace in cars he had never driven before, on tracks he had never driven on before. Perhaps these are great examples of Micheal Slowmacher NOT DOMINATING BY SECONDS, but they look to me to be good enough for an F1 drivers resume.

What about the other examples not mentioned? DTM, Group C, The Sauber test and even his performance in F3 against Salo and Hakkinen?

What about them? He was German F3 champion in his second year, won Macau and Fuji races and did ok in sportscars in the same year. The next year he still did sportscars, incuding some DTM races and he joined the F1 grid halfway during the season. So his resume in Formula racing is pretty good (won everything there was to win) and in sportscars solid, but not spectacular -although notice was taken off him by the people running the sportscar teams.

De Cesaris, A self described old man Piquet and Moreno. We were hardly talking about the sharp end of the 1991 grid.

Andrea kicked Zanardi's ass in qualifying. "Old man" (not all that much older than championship hopefull Prost) Piquet was still a 3 time world champion who was in his second year with the team, and rookie MS (not even a GP start to his name) duly beat him. Moreno's averageness was exposed for all to see when he was outqualified be a rookie in a Jordan, that's why Schumacher was hired he had better pace than Moreno.
And while you may sneer that this is not the sharp end of the grid, the only thing sharper would have driven a championship winning Mac or a soon-to-be-unbeatable Williams.

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

Zanardi did in fact impress at Jordan, he did in fact manage to start his first race and raced convincingly and fast.

He was never ahead of de Cesaris, neither in qualifying nor in the race. MS at least managed to outqualified an aging journeyman in his first qualification session.

I've mentioned numerous examples of Schumacher failing to dominate in cars that were not developed to his exclusive liking, i.e. like the cars other unfortunate F1 drivers have to use every weekend.

You've been looking at cases with the obvious intent of making them into examples of Schumacher not dominating and what you've ended up with is a bunch of one-offs, firsts and oddballs where Schumacher impressed, even if he did not dominate.
And quite apart from the skewed perspective you are also arguing under restriction that further serve to make it easier to prove your point, whenever teammates are dominated by MS you claim that the "teammate respression" is in effect and we can't use it as a valid example. And where MS does great things with a car you presuppose that it was designed around him, therefore not being an example of MS doing well in a regular car.

That is my case. He dominates because he is in an exclusive position. There is no other driver currently who enjoys that total attention of the team that he receives

Schumacher races to win, and he pulls out all the plugs to do so. Does that mean he isn't winning because he is a better driver than the others? I would argue otherwise, but that is not possible within your frame of reference. I can't point out how he's beaten his teammates, because you've already declared them or the comparison irrelevant. I can't point to his achievements, because you claim them to be due to his exclusive status. I can't even point to his achievements in the years that his cars were not as good as they should have been, because people theorize that these cars were actually as good as what he achieved with them...

but inspite of that his loyal followers seem to think that Schumacher is some seconds faster a lap then the rest of the grid.

The loyal followers of JPM think the same thing about Juancho... But of the last decade how many drivers could you mention that were faster than MS?

Originally posted by karlth
I feel that Barcelona was a turning point of the 1995 season and in my opinion turned the B195 into a "swan". Now it can be debated endlessly if the FW17 or the B195 was the stronger car but I think it is fairly obvious that the Benetton was not the tractor that some forum members have hinted at.

Next on your agenda "King of the Racing Ground: how sheer power made the 96 Ferrari a proven racewinner"

Originally posted by Foxbat
Perhaps these are great examples of Micheal Slowmacher NOT DOMINATING BY SECONDS, but they look to me to be good enough for an F1 drivers resume.

No question about it. I'm not doubting that he is one of the fastest drivers in F1 but is he some seconds faster than the rest? There really is no evidence of that.

Andrea kicked Zanardi's ass in qualifying.

True, but Jordan were highly impressed nevertheless. You'll probably have to ask them why.

And while you may sneer that this is not the sharp end of the grid, the only thing sharper would have driven a championship winning Mac or a soon-to-be-unbeatable Williams.

And Ferrari. Remember also that Spa was the track that Jordan expected to be the strongest that season.

He was never ahead of de Cesaris, neither in qualifying nor in the race.

He overtook De Cesaris in his second race who then fumbled and took out half the grid.

You've been looking at cases with the obvious intent of making them into examples of Schumacher not dominating and what you've ended up with is a bunch of one-offs, firsts and oddballs where Schumacher impressed, even if he did not dominate.

Exactly.

... whenever teammates are dominated by MS you claim that the "teammate respression" is in effect and we can't use it as a valid example. And where MS does great things with a car you presuppose that it was designed around him, therefore not being an example of MS doing well in a regular car.

All true. What can I say?

Schumacher races to win, and he pulls out all the plugs to do so. Does that mean he isn't winning because he is a better driver than the others? I would argue otherwise,

As I it is not a question of him being the fastest driver, he undoubtably sometimes is, but a question of if he really is some seconds quicker than the rest.

Do you for example really believe that all that testing, all that development and teammate help does not affect the advantage he has had in pace over his teammates?

The loyal followers of JPM think the same thing about Juancho... But of the last decade how many drivers could you mention that were faster than MS?

At least Montoya absolutely dominated his first F1 test.

I wouldn't want to choose between the pure pace of Juan, Fisichella, Michael, Hakkinen, Ralf and now Kimi Raikkonen.

Originally posted by TAB666


Yeah like that has a lot to do with the whole car. What about the 2 cars you are comparing , the williams and benetton from 95. They had the same engine but they where totaly different in handling. The B195 was on the edgey side and the williams smooth.

He's trying to re-wrtie history. I watched all the races during that 1995 season, and my collective impression was that the Williams was smoother whilst MS was always fighting the wheel, the Williams was also a tad faster too. Nothing that Karlth dreams up will ever change my impression of that 1995 season, that's why i find this whole thread regarding the B195 as pointless.

Originally posted by The RedBaron


He's trying to re-wrtie history. I watched all the races during that 1995 season, and my collective impression was that the Williams was smoother whilst MS was always fighting the wheel, the Williams was also a tad faster too. Nothing that Karlth dreams up will ever change my impression of that 1995 season, that's why i find this whole thread regarding the B195 as pointless.

Agreed, telemetry also proved it , in a UK mag, Autosport many months ago, the secrets to Schuey's speed, showed telemetry at Silverstone, MS putting much more input in the corners etc, getting more speed, compared to a more average Herbert.

Originally posted by SeanValen




Agreed, telemetry also proved it , in a UK mag, Autosport many months ago, the secrets to Schuey's speed, showed telemetry at Silverstone, MS putting much more input in the corners etc, getting more speed, compared to a more average Herbert.

Sean how dare you post facts here

You'll get banned from this forum if you keep it up

[i]

I wouldn't want to choose between the pure pace of Juan, Fisichella, Michael, Hakkinen, Ralf and now Kimi Raikkonen. [/B]

Neither would I, but give me a choice on who can do it for the longest over a race distance and the choice is not only clear, its also written now in history.

By the way you forgot pole winning Barrichello in your list.

Originally posted by The RedBaron
Nothing that Karlth dreams up will ever change my impression of that 1995 season, that's why i find this whole thread regarding the B195 as pointless.

I hate to brake the news to you, but posts are not written in this forum for your personal amusement.

Originally posted by SeanValen
Agreed, telemetry also proved it , in a UK mag, Autosport many months ago, the secrets to Schuey's speed, showed telemetry at Silverstone, MS putting much more input in the corners etc, getting more speed, compared to a more average Herbert.

Sean, How much faster Schumacher was than Herbert at Silverstone is a combination of many things including talent, setup, confidence, etc.

You can't look at the telemetry and say simply. "Driver A is faster so he must be a better driver!" it is, as I'm sure you know, much more complex than that.

If BBC had compared Coulthard's and Hakkinen's telemetry from mid season 2000 would you then have said that Coulthard was a faster driver? Of course not because at that time Hakkinen was in a slump, due to a car that didn't suit his driving style and possibly some personal problems. Now I'm not saying that telemetry cannot be used to judge the difference between two drivers, what I'm saying is that in the case of Herbert and Schumacher there were some exceptional circumstances that affected Herbert's pace and must be taken into account when comparing those two drivers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by karlth
[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. [/QUOTE]

Not a startling revelation either..

"Willie Weber, his future manager, was running his own Formula Three team and gave Michael a test in one of his cars. After seven or eight laps he was setting times 1 1/2 seconds faster than Webber's regular driver".

It doesnt matter what you say about Irvine versus MS, Irvine out of his own mouth said "His apex speeds are incredible, the Guys not human".

I saw/heard Irvine say this myself when he was at Ferrari and his opinion carries slightly more weight than yours.

Sir Frank your post #15 is spot on!!

Originally posted by Mark Beckman


Neither would I, but give me a choice on who can do it for the longest over a race distance and the choice is not only clear, its also written now in history.

I agree with that. I think you could also add that during the in and out laps in the races, MS is probably faster than anyone?

Originally posted by karlth

Sean, How much faster Schumacher was than Herbert at Silverstone is a combination of many things including talent, setup, confidence, etc.

You can't look at the telemetry and say simply. "Driver A is faster so he must be a better driver!" it is, as I'm sure you know, much more complex than that.

The telemetry didn't just show that Schumacher was faster, but also why. It showed how Schumacher was able to carry much, much more speed through the corners then Herbert, through skill and not just because the Herb was in a slump or was approaching the corners more slowly (he was actually, but that could be confidence, setup or whatever).

Karlth has an excuse for every reason why Schumacher was faster than any of his teammates, now we have "exceptional circumstances" why Herbert was slower than MS at the Silverstone test.
He dismisses every valid reason thrown at him.....so what's the point of this thread and what's the point of comparing MS with any of his teammates.

What are these Herbert exceptional circumstances??

Foxbat, Sean Valen, Mark Beckham....yep, i would have thought cornering styles and technique was a contributory factor why driver X was faster over one lap than driver Y....obviously not in
Karlth's world!....not even with telemetry to back it up, or driver statements!

Originally posted by karlth
Originally posted by The RedBaron
[B]Nothing that Karlth dreams up will ever change my impression of that 1995 season, that's why i find this whole thread regarding the B195 as pointless.

I hate to brake the news to you, but posts are not written in this forum for your personal amusement.

Break or brake?

I just stated my impressions of the 1995 season....what has personal amusement got to do with that?
The only thing I find amusing on this thread are your absurd comments, the rest of this thread is fine!

Originally posted by The RedBaron
Karlth has an excuse for every reason why Schumacher was faster than any of his teammates, now we have "exceptional circumstances" why Herbert was slower than MS at the Silverstone test.
He dismisses every valid reason thrown at him.....so what's the point of this thread and what's the point of comparing MS with any of his teammates.

What are these Herbert exceptional circumstances??

Foxbat, Sean Valen, Mark Beckham....yep, i would have thought cornering styles and technique was a contributory factor why driver X was faster over one lap than driver Y....obviously not in
Karlth's world!....not even with telemetry to back it up, or driver statements!

Karlth is obviously set on in his ways on this issue and NO fact or argument is going change it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by karlth
Originally posted by Foxbat
Perhaps these are great examples of Micheal Slowmacher NOT DOMINATING BY SECONDS, but they look to me to be good enough for an F1 drivers resume.

No question about it. I'm not doubting that he is one of the fastest drivers in F1 but is he some seconds faster than the rest? There really is no evidence of that.

[QUOTE]True, but Jordan were highly impressed nevertheless. You'll probably have to ask them why. [/QUOTE]

The same people who weren't overly impressed by MS? I bet they were also behind getting Hill to do "just one more race, or maybe the rest of the season"

[QUOTE]And while you may sneer that this is not the sharp end of the grid, the only thing sharper would have driven a championship winning Mac or a soon-to-be-unbeatable Williams.

And Ferrari. [/QUOTE]

Because of the state of affairs that Ferrari had descended to I was loathe to mention them, not only was the atmosphere destroyed and the car a letdown they barely managed to get two cars to the finish line and ended up replacing Prost with Morbidelli

[QUOTE] Remember also that Spa was the track that Jordan expected to be the strongest that season.[/QUOTE]

But that doesn't change MS's performance relative to de Cesaris, or even compared to Piquet and Moreno.

[QUOTE]He was never ahead of de Cesaris, neither in qualifying nor in the race.

He overtook De Cesaris in his second race who then fumbled and took out half the grid.[/QUOTE]

Ok, I take that back then, he managed to best de Cesaris once, didn't Andrea run into someone lapping him? Or was that another incident...?

[QUOTE]You've been looking at cases with the obvious intent of making them into examples of Schumacher not dominating and what you've ended up with is a bunch of one-offs, firsts and oddballs where Schumacher impressed, even if he did not dominate.

Exactly.[/QUOTE]

If that's supposed to make the case that he doesn't naturally dominate other drivers, then it's not a very good case. Even the greatest drivers impress rather than dominate when they are young and tucked into a car in a completely different class with no preparation. Jim Clark for example, arguably the fastest F1 driver ever, only did so-so in sportscars.

[QUOTE]... whenever teammates are dominated by MS you claim that the "teammate respression" is in effect and we can't use it as a valid example. And where MS does great things with a car you presuppose that it was designed around him, therefore not being an example of MS doing well in a regular car.

All true. What can I say? [/QUOTE]

You could apologise for starting u a discussion and then making it impossible to actually discuss anything

[QUOTE]Schumacher races to win, and he pulls out all the plugs to do so. Does that mean he isn't winning because he is a better driver than the others? I would argue otherwise,

As I it is not a question of him being the fastest driver, he undoubtably sometimes is, but a question of if he really is some seconds quicker than the rest.

Do you for example really believe that all that testing, all that development and teammate help does not affect the advantage he has had in pace over his teammates?[/QUOTE]

O f course it all helps, and is Schumacher seconds ahead of other drivers? Generally no (with the obvious exception of the likes of Yoong), but I have no problem believing that he finds it easier to get a handle on an imbalanced car thus giving him a huge -possibly seconds- advantadge over teammates struggling with said cars.
Also I think you shouldn't underestimate how much a difference MS makes over a race. He is one of the fastest drivers over a lap, but he is also capable of running more such laps in a race, with greater consistency (and seemingly at will) then other drivers.

[QUOTE][b]The loyal followers of JPM think the same thing about Juancho... But of the last decade how many drivers could you mention that were faster than MS?

At least Montoya absolutely dominated his first F1 test. [/QUOTE]

Good for him, but the relevance of such a test is that it brings you into F1, making more out of it brings you deeper into HSJ terrain (where a drivers 'performance' in F1 is gouged by performance in other series).

[QUOTE]I wouldn't want to choose between the pure pace of Juan, Fisichella, Michael, Hakkinen, Ralf and now Kimi Raikkonen. [/QUOTE]

I would say that Ralf isn't as fast or as consistent as has Bro, close but no cigar imho. And while I rate Fisico I think he is still in many ways too unproven (give Fisi a Ferrari!). But either way we're taking about a handfull of people who are on pace with MS, I think that is a pretty good case for the idea that his rise to the topdid have something to do with his pace

Originally posted by The RedBaron

I just stated my impressions of the 1995 season....what has personal amusement got to do with that?

Well as you so neatly put it because you had not intention of changing your mind on the 1995 season you thought this thread was pointless. In other words something that you don't agree with or find interesting shouldn't be posted.

Please for your own sake, ignore my posts in the future. I don't think they do you any good.

Originally posted by Foxbat

Sorry if my reply is a bit short this time but I'll be away until tomorrow, hope to able to give a more thorough reply then.

Of course it all helps, and is Schumacher seconds ahead of other drivers? Generally no (with the obvious exception of the likes of Yoong), but I have no problem believing that he finds it easier to get a handle on an imbalanced car thus giving him a huge -possibly seconds- advantadge over teammates struggling with said cars.

My point is that it is not, or at least not only, Schumacher's talent that allows him to get a handle on difficult cars more than his teammates but the focus the team gives him and the considerable advantage he has in testing.

Also I think you shouldn't underestimate how much a difference MS makes over a race. He is one of the fastest drivers over a lap, but he is also capable of running more such laps in a race, with greater consistency (and seemingly at will) then other drivers.

That is true, but again I'm not sure how much of an advantage he has now in that area. It was probably though considerable in the early 90s mostly due to his fitness.

Cheers

This is Gerhard Bergers description of his first days at Benetton in 1996, from his book "Zielgerade". (Translation into english by me, hence I am responsible for all errors)

"You arrive at your new team like in a new office, shaking hands, watching around, let them show you all, get an initial feeling: so then thats the flavour at Benetton.
They are great in the big things, clearly, otherwise they wouldn't have been world champion twice. They are not so great in, for instance, carpets. The floor is rather felts, and the whole room is smelling for cigarettes and everyone is putting down his coffee cup on the massage table.

[...]

But before it came to the first massage in the Benetton motor home, I already threw away the world championly car. The car had simply gone off - and away it was - faster than I could watch. It was at the first test in Estoril and the crash was that terrible, that we had three days delay, because they had to send the car to England.
All laughed and patted me on the shoulder "hey, your first Benetton crash" as if it was a good omen. It rained when the repaired car came back, we waited but then decided to go out in the rain just to get a bit more familiar with the car.
In the third lap it went off with the backside head-on into the armcos. Again scrap.
The laugh from the first crash was a thinner grin now. My team mate Alesi waved goodbye as often as me but had always a free run-off area while spinning, so he didn't demolish anything.
The next test was in Barcelona. I started the thing very calm and analytical. Like at the first Estoril day I had no bad feeling with the car. There was just a full second missing, so I had to close up on the limit.
Next crash.
Of course, this one was nothing but embarrassing, and I could read a certain desire for Schumacher in the faces of the engineers and the mechanics.
The thought exchange with my new boss wasn't fruitful too. Flavio Briatore swept away all issues with terrific superficiality. He may talked about technics, but while he talked you had the suspicion he couldn't distinguish between a steering wheel and a car wheel. He has absolutely nothing of racing in his blood, he simply lives for marketing, preferrably his own.

[...]

The most solid component was the Renault engine at the height of its maturity. The performance of the frenchmen was a modern translation of the Honda leadership in the previous generation. They were not simply obsessed with power and revs, but had a very fine feeling for the driveability of the engine in the farest way. They also had a lot of sporting mind, by far exceeding technics and statistics of success.
In any case the engine was not the problem. To our chief engineers I said something like "I went off three times now and accept the blame, but it should be clear to you that the car has a problem and it would be nice if you could turn on your computers once more".
The mystery indeed could be encircled. On bumps while at full speed the car went "in stall", like an aircraft which abruptly loses all its aerodynamic effect. If the bump was in a fast corner the car could go into snap oversteer. This feature of the Benetton was certainly not unknown. Johnny Herbert went off a few times in 1995 and then simply didn't dare to step at this limit. And Michael Schumacher had something like a supernatural reflex for this situation. He later explained it to me: He automatically anticipated the countersteer on the bump, he had already memorized this procedure in himself.
This was the point where I couldn't stay reserved against Michael Schumacher: Someone who had the sovereign knack on this car even at the limit must have been absolutely in a class for himself."


Some pages later he said with regard to his little feud with Michael he had at that time:

"The final point of return came when I took over his car, the Benetton from the end of the 1995 season. I thought 'oh my god, he won the world championship with this car!' That simply wasn't a car in which you win a world championship, this could be managed only by someone really special. Then I knew the guy was alright and didn't hesitate to tell this everyone who wanted to hear it."

IMHO a nice summary of someone who did know the car by himself.

Trouble is of course, that karlth and the other conspiracy theorists will claim that Bennetton rigged the car especially to make MS look good even after he'd gone and even though it cost them $$$ in repair bills. It makes alien abduction seem feasible.

Very Good post Uwe

I feel fortunate to watch the 95 season with my own eyes, rather then just read Karlth's post. So I know what the real 95 seaon and history were.

So tell me Karlth, are you going to prove next that the 96 and 97 Ferrari were better cars than Williams? Then It will be really interesting.

Originally posted by RacingDriver
Very Good post Uwe

I feel fortunate to watch the 95 season with my own eyes, rather then just read Karlth's post. So I know what the real 95 seaon and history were.

So tell me Karlth, are you going to prove next that the 96 and 97 Ferrari were better cars than Williams? Then It will be really interesting.

Racing driver- this is what I was trying to say too, but the idiot wants to re-write history!!

Originally posted by RacingDriver
So tell me Karlth, are you going to prove next that the 96 and 97 Ferrari were better cars than Williams? Then It will be really interesting.

So, RacinDriver and all the other dudes having so much fun onver there... When you stop rolling on the floor, how would you address to Karlth's point that prior Barcelona Schumacher was dusted by Hill on race pace and after Barcelona was faster on the race pace with two stops while Hill was making three? Of course I am pretty sure that there won't be any answers because you are all so busy rolling on the floor laughing and patting your back over the jokes you make here.

Originally posted by Force Ten
So, RacinDriver and all the other dudes having so much fun onver there... When you stop rolling on the floor, how would you address to Karlth's point that prior Barcelona Schumacher was dusted by Hill on race pace and after Barcelona was faster on the race pace with two stops while Hill was making three? Of course I am pretty sure that there won't be any answers because you are all so busy rolling on the floor laughing and patting your back over the jokes you make here.

We'll simply acknowledge that Frank Williams did the right thing in sacking Hill based on his weak 1995 performances.

Thanks Uwe

Originally posted by SeanValen


Agreed, telemetry also proved it , in a UK mag, Autosport many months ago, the secrets to Schuey's speed, showed telemetry at Silverstone, MS putting much more input in the corners etc, getting more speed, compared to a more average Herbert.

Here is a topic I started about this http://www.atlasf1.c...&threadid=42619

/Viktor

I watched all the races during that 1995 season, and my collective impression was that the Williams was smoother whilst MS was always fighting the wheel, the Williams was also a tad faster too.

It was evident on TV.
All F1 people know that Williams was the faster car clearly...

Peter Wright:

In 1995 Benetton had the best driver, best team and equal best engine, enabling them to beat Williams who had the best car and equal best engine. The cards have been shuffled for 1996:

Best driver Ferrari

Best team Benetton

Best car Williams

Best Engine Williams and Benetton

http://www.grandprix...ft/ft00206.html

Originally posted by Nikolas Garth
We'll simply acknowledge that Frank Williams did the right thing in sacking Hill based on his weak 1995 performances.

And this is in the context of the idea of this thread as of... how? Oh, I get it. It isn't, your posts almost always are just a waste of bulletin board space. Well, it's good to know that in these past 4 years that you have written into this board, you can't be seriously accused of having upped your level in any way whatsoever.

Originally posted by Uwe
This is Gerhard Bergers description of his first days at Benetton in 1996, from his book "Zielgerade". (Translation into english by me, hence I am responsible for all errors)

Good translation, thanks for posting.

Gerhard Berger sat in a car developed throughout a whole season around Michael Schumacher's driving style, a car that Schumacher himself had lost control of on several occasions while getting used to it.

Was the B195 smooth during the Barcelona GP? We have Schumacher's word for it "It was smooth and perfect." That sounds pretty final to me.

Now finally I can't see how some crashes that Gerhard Berger had after the 1995 season in some way shed a light on how good the B195 was in Barcelona some months earlier. If you on the other hand are trying to imply that Schumacher must be a much better driver than Berger might I ask then how on earth that is supposed to prove anything when Gerhard was stepping into a very quick F1 car exclusively developed around the needs of another driver?

Do you consider that a fair comparison?

A fair comparison is when Schumacher is driving a car that is developed around other drivers as well, or at least not around him exclusively. When that has happened he frankly has failed to set the world on fire. So is Schumacher in my opinion some seconds faster than the rest of grid? Definately not. Is Schumacher one of the fastest drivers in F1? Yes most certainly.

Originally posted by Group B
Trouble is of course, that karlth and the other conspiracy theorists will claim that Bennetton rigged the car especially to make MS look good even after he'd gone and even though it cost them $$$ in repair bills.

No.

Is that the best you can give, is that the extend of your knowledge? How about some good counter arguments of your own instead of this failed mockery.

Originally posted by karlth
Gerhard Berger sat in a car developed throughout a whole season around Michael Schumacher's driving style, a car that Schumacher himself had lost control of on several occasions while getting used to it. [/B]

That doesn't make sense

So a car that was so diffcuit to drive, even MS lost control a few time. He didn't like the handing of the car and he needed to get used the handing problem

Than you claimed that car was developed around him and suited his driving style?

Amazing logic

Originally posted by RacingDriver

That doesn't make sense

So a car that was so diffcuit to drive, even MS lost control a few time. He didn't like the handing of the car and he needed to get used the handing problem

Than you claimed that car was developed around him and suited his driving style?

Amazing logic

Schumacher crashed the B195 a couple of times in the beginning of the season, before Barcelona, and during the season the car was developed around him.

What do you not understand?

Originally posted by karlth
Originally posted by Uwe
This is Gerhard Bergers description of his first days at Benetton in 1996, from his book "Zielgerade". (Translation into english by me, hence I am responsible for all errors)

Good translation, thanks for posting.

Gerhard Berger sat in a car developed throughout a whole season around Michael Schumacher's driving style, a car that Schumacher himself had lost control of on several occasions while getting used to it.

Was the B195 smooth during the Barcelona GP? We have Schumacher's word for it "It was smooth and perfect." That sounds pretty final to me.

Now finally I can't see how some crashes that Gerhard Berger had after the 1995 season in some way shed a light on how good the B195 was in Barcelona some months earlier. If you on the other hand are trying to imply that Schumacher must be a much better driver than Berger might I ask then how on earth that is supposed to prove anything when Gerhard was stepping into a very quick F1 car exclusively developed around the needs of another driver?

Do you consider that a fair comparison?

A fair comparison is when Schumacher is driving a car that is developed around other drivers as well, or at least not around him exclusively. When that has happened he frankly has failed to set the world on fire. So is Schumacher in my opinion some seconds faster than the rest of grid? Definately not. Is Schumacher one of the fastest drivers in F1? Yes most certainly.

a: Berger certainly had other experience in stepping into other cars for the first time. I think he had some amount of perspective.

b: Schumacher looked pretty damn quick stepping into Berger's Ferrari. He wondered how it didn't win the WDC, let alone more races. He also put in some pretty fine drives in 1996, in a car that was built around nobody, it seemed.

So during the season he developed a car which was so diffcuit to drive, even Gerhard Bergers couldn't control it?

Or the car was fundamentaly bad?

Originally posted by RacingDriver
Or the car was fundamentaly bad?

It won the WCC, it can't have been too bad. The problem is we can't accurately gauge its performance because of Herbert's treatment at Benetton.


"During the winter tests, the difference between Johnny Herbert's
performance and mine was small in some tests. I have asked the team
- which has accepted - that the data concerning my driving was not
showed to him. I don't see why I would have offered him the means
of, maybe, beating me."
Michael Schumacher, 1995

Originally posted by karlth
Was the B195 smooth during the Barcelona GP? We have Schumacher's word for it "It was smooth and perfect." That sounds pretty final to me.

In my view this isn't final. There were tracks which did suit the B195, there were tracks which didn't. Barcelona might be one of the former.

Now finally I can't see how some crashes that Gerhard Berger had after the 1995 season in some way shed a light on how good the B195 was in Barcelona some months earlier. If you on the other hand are trying to imply that Schumacher must be a much better driver than Berger might I ask then how on earth that is supposed to prove anything when Gerhard was stepping into a very quick F1 car exclusively developed around the needs of another driver?

Exclusively developed in the way that if Benetton had to choose between overall speed and stability in fast corners they could afford to choose the speed, this due to the abilities of their driver. With other drivers it just wouldn't have worked, as Herbert, Berger and even Alesi with his great car control proved. And if you get this confirmed by Bergers written word, what do you want more?

So is Schumacher in my opinion some seconds faster than the rest of grid? Definately not.

I agree, Schumacher is not two seconds faster than the next. But we do not have 1955, we have 2002. And if in these times you are 0.3 - 0.5 seconds faster than the next fastest driver this is one hell of a gap. IMHO of course and with today's cars.

Originally posted by Uwe
In my view this isn't final. There were tracks which did suit the B195, there were tracks which didn't. Barcelona might be one of the former.

Schumacher was talking about Barcelona. The car was smooth in Barcelona.

Now was that because as some have said because the circuit suited the B195? Not in my opinion because the Benetton was just as strong during the race in Monte Carlo, a totally different circuit and the car was undriveable on Friday before qualifying at Barcelona.

On the other hand what Schumacher considers a smooth car is perhaps not what others would call a smooth car.

Exclusively developed in the way that if Benetton had to choose between overall speed and stability in fast corners they could afford to choose the speed, this due to the abilities of their driver. With other drivers it just wouldn't have worked, as Herbert, Berger and even Alesi with his great car control proved. And if you get this confirmed by Bergers written word, what do you want more?

Jean Alesi for example found the car easy to drive when he tested it at the same time as Berger at Estoril. The car simply didn't agree with Berger's driving style.

I agree, Schumacher is not two seconds faster than the next. But we do not have 1955, we have 2002. And if in these times you are 0.3 - 0.5 seconds faster than the next fastest driver this is one hell of a gap. IMHO of course and with today's cars.

0.3 - 0.5s faster than the next fastest driver?

Now answer me this. If he is so fast then why didn't he display that same superiority the last time he as competed against a great driver in unquestionably a non exclusively developed car? Namely Frentzen in the Group C Saubers. Before answering this remember that those cars were essentially full bodied F1 cars with carbon fiber brakes and F1 class powerful engines.

Originally posted by karlth
0.3 - 0.5s faster than the next fastest driver?

Now answer me this. If he is so fast then why didn't he display that same superiority the last time he as competed against a great driver in unquestionably a non exclusively developed car? Namely Frentzen in the Group C Saubers. Before answering this remember that those cars were essentially full bodied F1 cars with carbon fiber brakes and F1 class powerful engines. [/B]

A driver develops during his carere. Schumacher was 21-22 in the Group C Sauber days, Frentzen 23-24. I think it is natural to belive that during that time Frentzen was as fast as Schumacher. But after that Schumacher has developt more the Frentzen and F1 proberly sutes Schumacher better the DTM and Group C.

/Viktor

Originally posted by Viktor

A driver develops during his carere. Schumacher was 21-22 in the Group C Sauber days, Frentzen 23-24. I think it is natural to belive that during that time Frentzen was as fast as Schumacher. But after that Schumacher has developt more the Frentzen and F1 proberly sutes Schumacher better the DTM and Group C.

/Viktor

Not according to Karlth's logic, everyone remains in the same state from the cradle onwards!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viktor
A driver develops during his carere. Schumacher was 21-22 in the Group C Sauber days, Frentzen 23-24. I think it is natural to belive that during that time Frentzen was as fast as Schumacher. But after that Schumacher has developt more the Frentzen and F1 proberly sutes Schumacher better the DTM and Group C.

I don't think one or two years make any difference at all, especially if talking about the sub 30 age bracket. Frentzen drove as much as Schumacher and was considered faster but Schumacher more consistent. Frentzen also finished ahead of Schumacher in F3. Also I'm note sure how you can say that Schumacher developed more than Frentzen since Group C they never competed in equal equipment. (And Schumacher possibly never on equal footing with anyone as well.)

There was an interview with Bernie before the Italian GP where he said that noone in Benetton, apart from "doesn't know a car wheel from a steering wheel" Briatore, wanted to sign Schumacher after Spa '91.

I don't know why two marketing man would try to squeeze a competitive German into a good car. Do you?

Originally posted by Smooth
a: Berger certainly had other experience in stepping into other cars for the first time. I think he had some amount of perspective.

Yes but the car didn't suit him. Alesi thought it was an easy car to drive.

b: Schumacher looked pretty damn quick stepping into Berger's Ferrari.

Understandable as he did a qualifying run on brand new slicks on every day of the test.

Originally posted by karlth

I don't think one or two years make any difference at all, especially if talking about the sub 30 age bracket. Frentzen drove as much as Schumacher and was considered faster but Schumacher more consistent. Frentzen also finished ahead of Schumacher in F3. Also I'm note sure how you can say that Schumacher developed more than Frentzen since Group C they never competed in equal equipment. (And Schumacher possibly never on equal footing with anyone as well.)

The closest we get to same cars is 1997. If we say that both the Ferrari and the Williams equaly good we can easy see that Schumacher was/is a better driver that year. 1 win (7 winns for Villeneuve) against 5 winns (its not just about the winns but if you watched the season you know the rest).

I dont know but I think 1988 was Schumachers first F3 season and Frentzens 2'nd or 3'rd and Frentzen finnished 2'nd in the championship with Schumacher 3'rd. Next year Schumacher won the championship. With the age difference this is not somthing strange. I think age makes a greater difference for drivers under 25 years old.

Do you have any Group C results? I checked the WSC results and could only find Frentzen in one race from 1990, and that race Schumacher was not in. Schumacher on the other hand drove many WSC races with Wendlinger and thay were, when both Saubers finnised, the fastest par. Schumacher also took the fastest lap at Le Mans.

Originally posted by karlth
There was an interview with Bernie before the Italian GP where he said that noone in Benetton, apart from "doesn't know a car wheel from a steering wheel" Briatore, wanted to sign Schumacher after Spa '91.

I don't know why two marketing man would try to squeeze a competitive German into a good car. Do you?

What I have heard is that Germany was a very low market for F1 in the late 80's and early 90's and after Schumachers storming performence at Spa in the Jordan Bernie saw a driver that could rase the interest for F1 in one of europs biggest markets. Briatore on the other hand wanted a new driver that "he" could build up the team with. Dont know where I have read it but it may be in the book sections posted on Atlas last year form the book "Pi???? Club".

/Viktor