beating lance isn't exactly an impressive record. They have no need to have a strong 2nd driver as we all know what happens in the team then, again. All Mercedes needs to do is keep building those world beaters and they'll keep winning all the championships they need. People only ever remember the WDC. WCC is already trivial. The teammate that came 2nd, 3rd or 11th in the WDC they don't care so long the WCC is won.
With that logic Vettel should be faster than Charles. Not all drivers simply sit in a new car and win. There is no question that it takes time to adapt ones style to a car. Vettel and Kimi are sensitive to a car more than others. Simplifying a complex system and driver style is not at all an automatic win equation.
why the issue to replace Bottas with another by the team. Bottas wins and points yield titles for the team and bonus to the crewmembers. It’s a bit simplistic and biased to say in a top team the other driver does not matter. They do and you know it. Glamour of WDC is a given. The larger picture shows the WCC matters. Not as notable in the public sense.
No, previous Fchatt post states that "anybody" can. Which i assume they would say the same for Senna's Mclaren or Schumi's Ferrari
If the 2nd driver truly mattered for the benchmark team...Mercedes would've hired Ricciardo. For Ferrari it clearly matters more as they know they're not the fastest team, therefore hired 2 top flight drivers. This carries a risk (as demonstrated several times last year alone)
Well, we know what Michael was able to do without the best car (champion 2 years on a row against a faster williams), and we also know what elton is able to do without the best car in most of the races...nothing!
It is about winning when the opportunity is there. Ferrari have failed in this. Even Max says you need a good car to win. Engineers say it’s 90% car now. We can discuss forever the past with testing etc. That era is gone now for many years. Ferrari must do better - team and drivers plus reliability and also making a bit of luck
The car was also 90% in Michaels time, but he was simply a much better driver than the rest, something that does not happen with elton.
Anybody else was welcome to drive that POS Barnard Ferrari. What Michael did in that piece of junk (Irvine's words) was on a nother level. Senna was another another in that crappy Toleman, passing everyone including Lauda in the McLaren. FIA / Ballestre got the chequered flag out just in time to save Prost's ass - not for the first time either.
Schumi drove the car well, but Ferrari was the 3rd best team when he came. They also podiumed and won races before Schumi came. Far far from the worst car on the grid, or even a midfield car. Hamilton also won races in a car that was not great. Alonso: "But I'm happy for him because he showed the talent from day one. He was able to win races when the car was there to win them, but he was also able to win races in seasons when his car was not on top form, like 2009 and things like that. He was still winning a couple of Grand Prix per year, so it's impressive." Schumi didn't win a championship his first years at Ferrari because the car was not developed and like many drivers he couldn't win with the car in that state. So just like every other driver, Micheal didn't win a championship until he was in a well developed car and team behind him, partially do to his great development skills.
The F310 was a piece of junk. Ask Eddie Irvine Michael meanwhile had class - and would not publicly criticize the car at the time
yap, Michael never once complained, he was the ultimate professional, makes me wanna slap elton in the face when he's driving such a superior machine to everyone else in the field and starts crying...what a loser, if he doesn't have a 1 sec per lap faster car than everyone else he's at the radio crying...and some call him a goat!! I know what sort of a goat he is Image Unavailable, Please Login
Exactly correct. Straight from Toto Wolff's mouth: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/140847/schumacher-founding-father-of-mercedes-success but I'm sure you know better, william...
What about the time Michael stayed in the toilet until it was time to get in the car preventing Rosberg from taking a whiz before qualifying. You consider that "professional" ?
Pitlane tactics have existed since the dawn of F1. Some of the tactics pulled by drivers in the 60's were toe-curling. Yes. Schumacher was the consumate professional who increased training, fitness and team building to a whole new level.
No need to twist anything around. Yes Toto is right Schumi was good at development. Every great will be known for something. Fangio, Clark, Senna, Hamilton will be known for something different.
Not necessarilly. They may simply look year after year if a better opportunity arises. If they were lacking faith in him, they wouldn't re-sign him, would they?
In sports and entertainment management there is usually a "Sunset Clause". Toto will be receiving a % of Bottas salary despite him no longer being his manager
