Close

    • Mercedes GP will evaluate Michael Schumacher's future later this year

      This is rather interesting. Schumacher has been criticized heavily in his comeback as he is not performing as expected and outperformed routinely by 26 year old teammate Nico Rosberg. Schumacher is under contract for 3 years total which means he has another year if he wants it. The comments from Mercedes GP president Ross Brawn are a bit troubling though as he stated, "He has a three-year contract with Mercedes, and we are very happy with him. But if he feels that he doesn't want to do it anymore, then we need to talk about it. You can't force somebody to do something." We have no idea where those comments came from but perhaps Schumacher has lost some heart? Something definitely isn't right at Mercedes GP as Brawn also stated, "Perhaps the situation would be a little easier for Michael if he had a teammate who was not so incredibly strong. But both can learn many things from each other, and everyone is up to the challenge.”

      This article was originally published in forum thread: Mercedes GP will evaluate Michael Schumacher's future later this year started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 24 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Anyone else think Schumacher is on his way out?
      1. Sorena's Avatar
        Sorena -
        he should have never come back.

        But there is a good point about Schumacher and that's his sponsors. he has plenty of sponsors and when he joined Mercedes GP those sponsors had to be Mercedes GP sponsors too, in other words lots of money went into Mercedes GP because of him.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sorena Click here to enlarge
        he should have never come back.

        But there is a good point about Schumacher and that's his sponsors. he has plenty of sponsors and when he joined Mercedes GP those sponsors had to be Mercedes GP sponsors too, in other words lots of money went into Mercedes GP because of him.
        So no matter what he has helped Mercedes.
      1. Scourge82's Avatar
        Scourge82 -
        I think he's doing great atm with the luck he has been dealt this year. His results don't show it, but his race pace is a lot better than Nico's. I's funny that we still have Barrichello and Trulli still racing and they are doing alot worse than Schumi, but no one says anything about them. I'm with Sorena, I don't think he should have came back, because he should have never retired. No matter what his results are right now, it's good to keep him to help build the team and use his experience. It took Ferrari and him 3 years to create a competitive car.
      1. M3_WC's Avatar
        M3_WC -
        Schumi should stay atleast one more season and help develop next years car. He can give a lot better feedback than some young punk. Nico is a fantastic talent and has a bright future. It is not surprising to see Nico quicker than Schumi.
      1. Yukohama's Avatar
        Yukohama -
        he should have kept racing back when he retired instead of retiring then coming back. I'm sure the leaps and bounds of technology on the F1 cars has him still learning things. I wonder if Schumi still gets anything from Ferrari?
      1. sr20seb's Avatar
        sr20seb -
        I'm a Schumacher hater and wish him nothing but the worst results in Formula 1. I never thought he was that fast to begin with, what with the superior car and his teammates pulling over for him to pass. Everybody said that he and Brawn were the reason why Ferrari went on to dominate.....well here's their chance again and what?
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
        I'm a Schumacher hater and wish him nothing but the worst results in Formula 1. I never thought he was that fast to begin with, what with the superior car and his teammates pulling over for him to pass. Everybody said that he and Brawn were the reason why Ferrari went on to dominate.....well here's their chance again and what?
        At that age you can't just come back after a layoff and dominate. Doesn't work in other sports, why would it here?
      1. Scourge82's Avatar
        Scourge82 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
        I'm a Schumacher hater and wish him nothing but the worst results in Formula 1. I never thought he was that fast to begin with, what with the superior car and his teammates pulling over for him to pass. Everybody said that he and Brawn were the reason why Ferrari went on to dominate.....well here's their chance again and what?
        You can hate on him all you want, but you can't deny his abilities. Not fast? Then how come has he set 76 different lap records. Yes, He did have a superior car at the beginning of his 2000's dominance. But so has every other championship winner. But when he won with Benetton in 94-95 He was using a Ford V8 engine compared to William's and Mclaren's V10 engines with his teammates barely finishing in the top 10.

        I think you're talking about the 2002 Austrian grand prix, when Barrichello let him pass, the same season where Schumi let Barrichello pass in the US grand prix. But then again, he's the only driver in F1 to use team orders...

        Schumacher, Brawn, Todt, were the reason they dominated and they did it with Benetton and with Ferrari, but it took them at least 3 years with those team to start being competitive. You can't expect an average team to become a championship winner overnight.
      1. sr20seb's Avatar
        sr20seb -
        Please don't get me started on 1994. And correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Mercedes GP called Brawn GP before? Didn't they win both the constructors and drivers championship in 2009? That looks like a pretty darn good start for domination if you ask me.
      1. ecampbell's Avatar
        ecampbell -
        You guys forget that it took brawn's management and schu 4 years to make Ferrari a winning car again. Yes he had the best car on the grid but that is because his input was instrumental in its refinement and design. The car is not designed around him now so it is unlikely in my opinion he will win again.

        Have a look at Kimi, JV or JPM, they were all great drivers but they could not offer anything technical to truly help the engineers.
      1. sr20seb's Avatar
        sr20seb -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by ecampbell Click here to enlarge
        You guys forget that it took brawn's management and schu 4 years to make Ferrari a winning car again. Yes he had the best car on the grid but that is because his input was instrumental in its refinement and design. The car is not designed around him now so it is unlikely in my opinion he will win again.

        Have a look at Kimi, JV or JPM, they were all great drivers but they could not offer anything technical to truly help the engineers.
        Wrong, the 1996 Ferrari was already wining races so the car was strong, but I think you're going to attribute that to "Schumacher Magic" instead of the machinery. 1997 his second year at Ferrari Schumacher finished 2nd in the championship before he was disqualified for trying to recreate the same scenario from 1994, he was only 3 points down to Villeneuve once everything was said and done. Ferrari was 2nd in the constructors. So your logic is flawed thinking that he needs 4 years to win something, he should be wining races already this season or even last since Brawn GP won both the Drivers and Constructors 2009 the year before he joined Mercedes GP.
      1. ecampbell's Avatar
        ecampbell -
        No your wrong as there is a big difference between winning races and winning a WDC....schumacher magic yup as you don't win 7 crowns without some skills.
      1. Scourge82's Avatar
        Scourge82 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
        Please don't get me started on 1994. And correct me if I'm wrong but weren't Mercedes GP called Brawn GP before? Didn't they win both the constructors and drivers championship in 2009? That looks like a pretty darn good start for domination if you ask me.
        Brawn GP did win both titles, because they poured all their money into making that car since they knew they were going to be a one year team. They dominated the first half of the season, then fell off the last half when the other teams finally adapted to the new regulations. If I remember correctly Jenson Button only won 4 races that year hardly dominating...

        Wrong, the 1996 Ferrari was already wining races so the car was strong, but I think you're going to attribute that to "Schumacher Magic" instead of the machinery. 1997 his second year at Ferrari Schumacher finished 2nd in the championship before he was disqualified for trying to recreate the same scenario from 1994, he was only 3 points down to Villeneuve once everything was said and done. Ferrari was 2nd in the constructors. So your logic is flawed thinking that he needs 4 years to win something, he should be wining races already this season or even last since Brawn GP won both the Drivers and Constructors 2009 the year before he joined Mercedes GP.
        Far from it, Ferrari was horrible that year, Schumi won 3 races, retired from 5 races and finished 3rd in the WDC, while his teammate Irvine retired 10 times because of failures and came in 10th that year. Yup a very competitive car...

        To say that Schumi or Rosberg should be winning races because Brawn GP won in 2009, is ridiculous. Brawn GP and Mercedes GP are completely different teams. The Brawn car was built by Honda before they left the sport and had to be modified to accept the Mercedes engine. They were winning because they were running the double diffusers while Ferrari, Red Bull, and Mclaren didn't run them till the second half of the season, hence why Brawn lost their dominance. When Mercedes took over, the car and engineering team completely changed and was redesigned from the ground up.
      1. sr20seb's Avatar
        sr20seb -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Scourge82 Click here to enlarge
        Brawn GP did win both titles, because they poured all their money into making that car since they knew they were going to be a one year team. They dominated the first half of the season, then fell off the last half when the other teams finally adapted to the new regulations. If I remember correctly Jenson Button only won 4 races that year hardly dominating...



        Far from it, Ferrari was horrible that year, Schumi won 3 races, retired from 5 races and finished 3rd in the WDC, while his teammate Irvine retired 10 times because of failures and came in 10th that year. Yup a very competitive car...

        To say that Schumi or Rosberg should be winning races because Brawn GP won in 2009, is ridiculous. Brawn GP and Mercedes GP are completely different teams. The Brawn car was built by Honda before they left the sport and had to be modified to accept the Mercedes engine. They were winning because they were running the double diffusers while Ferrari, Red Bull, and Mclaren didn't run them till the second half of the season, hence why Brawn lost their dominance. When Mercedes took over, the car and engineering team completely changed and was redesigned from the ground up.
        Alright I'll entertain

        1997 = Ferrari ends up 2nd in the constructors championship.
        2010 = Mercedes GP ends up 4th in the consctructors.

        So what do we have that's the same?

        1. New Car
        2. Michael Schumacher
        3. Michael Schumacher's 2nd season (exactly like in 1997 with Ferrari)
        4. Ross Brawn

        Well that surely is a recipe for success, so where is it? What's the difference? Surely the legend can develop the car rapidly as he had done in the past? Oh wait let's not forget that he is not even matching his teammate where he used to beat on them constantly.

        The man has skill, the man has won 6 championships ( I don't count 1994 due to him taking Hill out on purpose, not to mention cheating from Bennetton). But he won it because he had the best machinery and poor teammates. He is not the mystical legend he is made out to be. What if Vettel matches the championships of Schumacher, will he be regarded as a legend as him? Doubt it, everybody on the F1 forums call him a good driver in top machinery.

        What is ridiculous to say is that the previous car has no influence on the next years car. Brawn had the best double deck diffuser on the paddock and remind me when were they banned? No let me remind you, 2011. So your excuses are just that.
      1. Scourge82's Avatar
        Scourge82 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
        Alright I'll entertain

        1997 = Ferrari ends up 2nd in the constructors championship.
        2010 = Mercedes GP ends up 4th in the consctructors.

        So what do we have that's the same?

        1. New Car
        2. Michael Schumacher
        3. Michael Schumacher's 2nd season (exactly like in 1997 with Ferrari)
        4. Ross Brawn

        Well that surely is a recipe for success, so where is it? What's the difference? Surely the legend can develop the car rapidly as he had done in the past? Oh wait let's not forget that he is not even matching his teammate where he used to beat on them constantly.

        The man has skill, the man has won 6 championships ( I don't count 1994 due to him taking Hill out on purpose, not to mention cheating from Bennetton). But he won it because he had the best machinery and poor teammates. He is not the mystical legend he is made out to be. What if Vettel matches the championships of Schumacher, will he be regarded as a legend as him? Doubt it, everybody on the F1 forums call him a good driver in top machinery.

        What is ridiculous to say is that the previous car has no influence on the next years car. Brawn had the best double deck diffuser on the paddock and remind me when were they banned? No let me remind you, 2011. So your excuses are just that.
        In 1997, Williams was the one with the dominating car, with the one hit wonder Villeneuve and Frentzen. Combined they won 11 races (JV won 10 and Frenzten won one), while Schumacher won 3 and Irvine was busy behind Coulthard or in the pits with a broken car. The Ferrari car was far from reliable and quick like the Williams was. Here's a quote from Schumacher from 95:

        in 1996 we will win three grands prix, then in 1997 we will challenge for the championship
        He knew going to Ferrari was going to be a long road to the championship and would take time for it to be championship material

        It took Ferrari and Schumacher 3 years to win the championship, excluding 1999 when Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone.

        Almost every single driver won a championship with the best machinery and being better than their teammate. Alan Prost, Ayrton Senna, Mikka Hakkinen, Damon Hill, Jack Vellineuve, Nigel Mansel. But what sets the first 2 I mentioned apart from the rest is that they remained competitive throughout their career, that's what made them legends while the rest just faded off into obscurity. I consider Schumacher in the same league as the first 2 I mentioned for now, because he remained competitive from winning in 94 till his first retirement . That's why I think he should retire for good, so he doesn't become like Hill or JV.

        Brawn did have the best diffuser in the first half of 09 until the other teams caught on, but it was Adrian Newey(who is a technical legend) and Red Bull who took it to the next level. The diffuser were not banned in the end, they were regulated to 10% throttle in Silverstone and are back to full force now. Not making excuses, just stating facts.
      1. sr20seb's Avatar
        sr20seb -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Scourge82 Click here to enlarge
        In 1997, Williams was the one with the dominating car, with the one hit wonder Villeneuve and Frentzen. Combined they won 11 races (JV won 10 and Frenzten won one), while Schumacher won 3 and Irvine was busy behind Coulthard or in the pits with a broken car. The Ferrari car was far from reliable and quick like the Williams was. Here's a quote from Schumacher from 95:



        He knew going to Ferrari was going to be a long road to the championship and would take time for it to be championship material

        It took Ferrari and Schumacher 3 years to win the championship, excluding 1999 when Schumacher broke his leg at Silverstone.

        Almost every single driver won a championship with the best machinery and being better than their teammate. Alan Prost, Ayrton Senna, Mikka Hakkinen, Damon Hill, Jack Vellineuve, Nigel Mansel. But what sets the first 2 I mentioned apart from the rest is that they remained competitive throughout their career, that's what made them legends while the rest just faded off into obscurity. I consider Schumacher in the same league as the first 2 I mentioned for now, because he remained competitive from winning in 94 till his first retirement . That's why I think he should retire for good, so he doesn't become like Hill or JV.

        Brawn did have the best diffuser in the first half of 09 until the other teams caught on, but it was Adrian Newey(who is a technical legend) and Red Bull who took it to the next level. The diffuser were not banned in the end, they were regulated to 10% throttle in Silverstone and are back to full force now. Not making excuses, just stating facts.
        We don't need to discuss which car was the dominating force in what year it has absolutely no relevance on the topic at hand. Please answer accordingly, you by telling me that the Williams was the dominating car in the 90's doesn't explain what is missing from the current times when it all worked back in the late 90's. We don't need to talk about when he started winning the championship with Ferrari either, that's not the only thing that counts. Winning races is what counts, and the Ferrari was winning races in 96, 97, etc. While in the seemingly same time frame of 2 years there is nothing to show for.

        Try to stay on topic of "Michael Schumacher" bringing Senna, or Newey or anybody else here means absolutely nothing.
      1. Scourge82's Avatar
        Scourge82 -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
        We don't need to discuss which car was the dominating force in what year it has absolutely no relevance on the topic at hand. Please answer accordingly, you by telling me that the Williams was the dominating car in the 90's doesn't explain what is missing from the current times when it all worked back in the late 90's. We don't need to talk about when he started winning the championship with Ferrari either, that's not the only thing that counts. Winning races is what counts, and the Ferrari was winning races in 96, 97, etc. While in the seemingly same time frame of 2 years there is nothing to show for.

        Try to stay on topic of "Michael Schumacher" bringing Senna, or Newey or anybody else here means absolutely nothing.
        Ok, if numbers is what counts, then Schumacher's numbers speak for them self:
        7 Championship titles
        91 Race victories
        153 Podiums
        68 Pole positions
        76 Fastest laps
        Not mentioning the 25+ other records he has set.

        Just because Ferrari won races in 96-97, doesn't make them a strong front running team. 8 wins and 9 retirements out of 38 races, that's a weak number to be considered a strong car. Jordan and Arrows have won races, does that make them championship material?

        Trying to compare 96-97 to the last 2 years is redundant. You can't make the comparison, just like with any other sport. There's too many different variables. Besides it takes more than 2 people to make a strong car.

        I brought Senna into the mix, because in a lot of ways they are very similar. They both drove their car to the edge, and had the "must win no matter what" mentality. The last part is what I think he lacks now. I brought Newey in for the rear diffuser comment which you thought were banned.

        Honestly, you're the one that hasn't explained why you think Schumacher was an average champion. I think no matter what facts I bring is going to change your mind, since you have given nothing to tell me otherwise.
      1. sr20seb's Avatar
        sr20seb -
        Oh but I have stated what makes him so good in your eyes. Which are the things he lacks now: A great car and bad teammates. Plenty of other teams would be happy to win 8 races in 2 years even now. What I'm hoping that you will eventually see when you take off your homer glasses is the gradual rise of the car to prominence, just like we have with Red Bull over the last few years. And Schmachers best achievement was to be in the right place at the right time which allowed him to set such records. Hakkinen could've easily set the same records if he was in the Ferrari or had Schumachers drive, cause he certainly had the skill to do so.

        Don't agree with me? Explain Eddie Irvine's performance in the year oh let's just pick 1999.
      1. DavidV's Avatar
        DavidV -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by sr20seb Click here to enlarge
        I'm a Schumacher hater and wish him nothing but the worst results in Formula 1.
        You can not be convinced about Schumacher's qualities. Logically, if this was your first statement in this thread.
        No matter. I'm not his greatest fan also. But you can not deny he had his good sides. Yes there were better drivers.
        Mika Hakkinen for instance beat Schumacher when Schumacher was at the very top of his game.


        Others have tried in those times, but most of them lacked either the materials or the team to back up their efforts.
        Typically the Fins are less obsessed / addicted to F1 to stay in the game long enough.
        But he set some amazing records not likely to be broken any time soon.
        You must give him credit for that (but you probably do not want to Click here to enlarge ).
        As a driver he had his arsenal of dirty tricks which made him less "lovable". Ask Damon Hill.


        But he retired when he no longer had fun driving. I think that is a good decission for a champion.
        He regretted this later on and had the chance to come back. IMO that was a mistake.
        He gets round on experience, but is no longer the fastest driver on the circuit by far.
        And as for overtaking capabilities, that was never his best quality. Just count the noses Mercedes has given him the last 27 races. He generated more stop-n-go penalties himself then the marshals have given him.
        With Ferrari at the time he never had to overtake much...