F1 Fanatic

Been thinking about just how much more unlucky Michael has been than Nico during their time as teamates

Michael’s bad luck:
2010 Malaysian GP – wheel comes loose
2010 Monaco GP – misinformed by team so opportunistic move on Alonso is penalised
2010 Canadian GP – gets a puncture from Robert Kubica’s front wing
2010 European GP – pitted under SC to find the red light at the end of the pitlane
2010 Abu Dhabi GP – hit head on by Liuzzi (although MSC is to blame for the initial spin)
2011 Australian GP – Given a puncture by Alguersuari eventually resulting in race ending damage
2011 Australian/Malaysian/Chinese GP’s – malfunctioning DRS means failure to make Q3
2011 Monaco GP – airbox fire
2011 Hungarian GP – terminal gearbox problem
2011 Belgian GP – wheel falls of in qualy
2011 Korean GP – taken out by Vitaly Petrov
2011 Brazilian GP – hit by Senna and given a puncture
2012 Australian GP – terminal gearbox problem
2012 Malaysian GP – spun around by Romain Grosjean
2012 Chinese GP – retire due to loose wheel
2012 Bahrain GP – malfunctioning DRS results in failure to make Q2

this is not including incidents Michael has brought upon himself eg. 10 place grid drop for move on Barichello

I can offer a broader perspective here. When it comes to reliability among championship-winning drivers, Schumacher has been one of the most fortunate.

At the beginning of 2011, Schumacher’s car failure rate was 8.21%, the second-lowest among all world champions:

Champion of Champions in stats

It’s only fair though. He had the best luck his whole career.

It’s only fair though. He had the best luck his whole career.

Swings and roundabouts I guess? Can’t have had all that good fortune in his ‘first career’ without paying the price this time around!

Indeed.
I don’t hate Schumacher – But in my opinion, he didn’t deserve the 1994 world title nor the 2003 title. In fact, his 2003 world title was one of the luckiest most un-deserving championship title of all-time. So no, I don’t feel bad for him. Sure, he’s unlucky now, but that’s just now.

I almost stopped watching the Chinese GP in disgust when I saw Schumi pull off the track. The Mercs were on such good form that I thought for sure he would at least get a podium finish. I’m not a huge fan of his, but I desperately want him to get a few podiums and eventually win.

@damionshadows

me too. But Bahrain GP was the worst.

This whole idea of “saving” tyres is completely dumb. Regardless of whether it is MSC or others. If you look at it from a neutral stand point, here we have this professional “very expensive” high-technology racing sport where everyone in it has to “save” tyres? It’s a joke. We need qualifying tyres to be introduced, or tyre limits to be completely removed. Let the teams pay for their own tyres and let them use as many as they want! If teams want to pit 10 times per race to change tyres then let them do it (pretty sure it will not do them any good regardless if they can afford it or not). If teams want to “save” tyres then let them save tyres. A tyre is a tyre ffs! It’s like asking a professional athlete or a performer to go on a run or a dance competition using second-hand worn-out shoes. OR a tennis player to use an old lose racquet. We know they are going to try and perform well, but they will be limited by the equipment. What’s the point!?

No, it’s bad luck @linukuruvilla . I hope as much as you do that it gets better, but there’s no sense in Mercedes sabotaging the high profile driver they signed up.

Anyway, regarding the tyres, the racing this season has been excellent, while tyre conservation has always been a part of the sport. From my perspective, I don’t believe Pirelli should change them at all. However, I guess that if you have the drivers themselves complaining about having to drive at “safety car” speeds, then you could argue that more could be done to reward the more aggressive drivers in certain conditions, while still rewarding the smoother drivers in other conditions.

I don’t agree, considering that the playing field was very even in 2003, there was no dominant team, but Schumacher won 6 races while no-one else won more than 2. Raikkonen drove very well and would have deserved it as much as MS, but missed out. Montoya and Ralf Schumacher had the car to win it, but made mistakes to throw it away in my opinion.

Yes, Schumacher won more races than anyone else. But what about the fact that unlike Montoya or Raikkonen, he hardly ever had any misfortunes? I remember Raikkonen’s engine giving up on him when he was leading in Europe; and he had to start from the back of the grid on multiple occassions due no fault of his own (Spain, Canada). Meanwhile, Montoya retiring twice from the lead due mechanical failures (Austria, Japan). What bad luck did Schumacher have? Crashing out in Brazil? Hitting Trulli in Malaysia? Running wide in Germany to cause a puncture? Spinning in Europe when Montoya overtook him? He was even puched out of the gravel that race, which gifted him 4 championship points, a greater margin than he won it that year.