Think u r good in GT4? Think again! 5min34sec ride of ur life!

[Darts]

It was (IMO) the more fabulous, but I believe the 956/962 is Porsche's most successful racing car of all-time.

I believe the overall all-time most successful is the Bugatti Type 35, but can't help thinking that with more races run these days that must have been beaten now. Still, it's numbers of wins as a percentage would be likely unbeatable.

It's always tough to compare - like saying Schumacher is the most successful F1 driver. He is.....but he didn't need to beat Prost, Senna, Mansell, Piquet to win his races. Imagine how many Prost would have won if he had been alone at the top in his heyday! HE won 51. Senna took 41 from him, Mansell took 31, Piquet took, Lauda took - it could have been easily 100 or more.

These things are impossible to compare.

Euuhm????
Schumacher has also raced many years against Senna and Prost. And like Hakkinen, and villeneuve and Damon and Senna and Prost didn't took victory's of Schumacher

 

[Famine]

Well, this is the first time i've seen this track ( i have heard of it before and seen footage of it) but never driven around it in any games or even seen an onboard of the circuit until now. Since im strting from scratch, i hope it won't take me too long to learn. You reckon this circuit is hard as he Complex String in GT3, cos that circuit took a while of practicing, but i mastered it after.

Complex String is a piece of p*** compared to the Nordschleife.

You've got a nice surface, a wide road and predictable, even-angled corners. The Nurburgring stomps on all of those, and adds 66% more distance.

 

[Majarvis]

Complex String is a piece of p*** compared to the Nordschleife.

You've got a nice surface, a wide road and predictable, even-angled corners. The Nurburgring stomps on all of those, and adds 66% more distance.

Not to mention the 'Ring ****s you in the @$$ and doesn't even give you a proper reach around, lol. The 'Ring is a whole other beast, I've driven it in GPL for several years, then PGR2, now it will be GT4, so I have a head start on MOST people who have never driven the track before, but that doesn't mean you don't have to re-learn it, it is still a different game...

 

[Moadib]

Euuhm????
Schumacher has also raced many years against Senna and Prost. And like Hakkinen, and villeneuve and Damon and Senna and Prost didn't took victory's of Schumacher

Schumacher raced ONE season against Alain Prost (1993), and won ONE race (In that season Prost won seven races, and Senna won five).

He raced two seasons against Senna, 1993 (above) and 1992. Again in 1992 Schumacher won ONE race, with Senna winning three.

The whole point was that in Prost's era you had Lauda (triple world champion), Piquet (triple world champion), Senna (triple world champion), Mansell (world champion), Rosberg (world champion) to beat. In Schumacher's era, as you point out, all there was to beat was Hill, Jacques Villeneuve etc, none of whom are remotely close to the calibre Prost had to beat. Hakkinen may be the exception, he was/is an exceptional driver...but then he also beat Schumacher twice :-)

My point is that it's impossible to compare numbers - nothing more than that. I happen to think that if Schumacher HAD raced Senna or Prost for the majority of his career, he would have far fewer wins and titles, but he would be a much better driver thanks to being pushed to even greater levels by the competition.

 

[Majarvis]

Schumacher raced ONE season against Alain Prost (1993), and won ONE race (In that season Prost won seven races, and Senna won five).

He raced two seasons against Senna, 1993 (above) and 1992. Again in 1992 Schumacher won ONE race, with Senna winning three.

The whole point was that in Prost's era you had Lauda (triple world champion), Piquet (triple world champion), Senna (triple world champion), Mansell (world champion), Rosberg (world champion) to beat. In Schumacher's era, as you point out, all there was to beat was Hill, Jacques Villeneuve etc, none of whom are remotely close to the calibre Prost had to beat. Hakkinen may be the exception, he was/is an exceptional driver...but then he also beat Schumacher twice :-)

My point is that it's impossible to compare numbers - nothing more than that. I happen to think that if Schumacher HAD raced Senna or Prost for the majority of his career, he would have far fewer wins and titles, but he would be a much better driver thanks to being pushed to even greater levels by the competition.

Yet, you seem to neglect the fact that Senna and Prost were running with the top teams in F1 at that time, while Schumacher was with Benetton.
Also, you neglect the fact that Schumacher was handing Senna his ass on a silver platter in '94 up until San Marino...

 

[EGFerio]

Yet, you seem to neglect the fact that Senna and Prost were running with the top teams in F1 at that time, while Schumacher was with Benetton.
Also, you neglect the fact that Schumacher was handing Senna his ass on a silver platter in '94 up until San Marino...

1993 Senna was driving a under Spec engine from Ford. Schumacher was in a Factory Speced engine. Senna was still winning races from a inferior car. Just to note some of the talent Senna has. When Prost and Schumacher had much better equipment. Don't take me wrong. I like Piquet, Prost & Schumacher. I also sees that is impossible to compare by numbers. If for numbers, their is still one Schumacher needs to have is Pole. Senna still has the record but soon it will be Schumachers and only 3 is needed.

 

[Moadib]

1993 Senna was driving a under Spec engine from Ford. Schumacher was in a Factory Speced engine. Senna was still winning races from a inferior car. Just to note some of the talent Senna has. When Prost and Schumacher had much better equipment. Don't take me wrong. I like Piquet, Prost & Schumacher. I also sees that is impossible to compare by numbers. If for numbers, their is still one Schumacher needs to have is Pole. Senna still has the record but soon it will be Schumachers and only 3 is needed.

Only three is needed, but again - what is the competition? When Schumacher takes Senna's pole position record (and he will), I ask two questions ;

- What was Schumacher's first EVER pole position?
- What was special about that race?

 

[Lamp]

AMD is better than INTEL.

 

[thegreatms]

AMD is better than INTEL.

IDIOT!!!!!

Intel is way better than AMD

 

[EGFerio]

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlines/news/detail/050113185356.shtml

 

[Boost Lee]

... another thread gone to ****.

 

[iceburns288]

BTW, comparing a rookie Schumacher to 3-time WC's isn't exactly a great comparison. You think he entered F1 and magically hit his prime immediately?

 

[Majarvis]

BTW, comparing a rookie Schumacher to 3-time WC's isn't exactly a great comparison. You think he entered F1 and magically hit his prime immediately?

Exactly, I think it shows well seeing how far up he qualified in his first ever race in a JORDAN.

 

[Kinxy55]

please RE-UP the sauber movie, it isnt working...


props in advance

 

[Moadib]

Exactly, I think it shows well seeing how far up he qualified in his first ever race in a JORDAN.

At that time Jordan were fifth in the constructor's championship (indicating he should qualifiy at least 9th or 10th anyway given the ability of the car), and Jordan were also 8th in the driver's championship with.....DE CESARIS. Now anyone who sits in an F1 car is a good driver, but if Andrea de Cesaris is running eighth, I'd expect any decent driver to do astonishing things.

Point is, the Jordan was a good car (also a beatiful one). With this car Schumacher qualled seventh, 7/10ths up on his team mate. In pre race warm up de Cesaris was again within 1/10th on lap time, so very close.

For comparative race pace, we'll never know - Schumacher burned out his clutch at the start.....

 

[F310B]

1993 Senna was driving a under Spec engine from Ford. Schumacher was in a Factory Speced engine. Senna was still winning races from a inferior car. Just to note some of the talent Senna has. When Prost and Schumacher had much better equipment.

Just thought I'd offer some defense in Schumacher's name here. I should point out, there is no reason to think that the McLaren Senna drove in 1993 was any slower than the Benetton Schumacher drove. The statement: 'Senna's car had an inferior engine therefore Senna's car was inferior' does not really hold if you think about it.

Senna's McLaren was a little down on power but then his McLaren had the best electronic driver aids - launch control, active control, traction control in the field. So good were these driver aids compared to Williams, Benetton, and other teams, that Senna was able to make the best start of anyone and be passing 2 or 3 people before the first corner, and never lost a place off the startline himself. The traction control also gave him better grip in all slow or medium speed corners.

At his famous first lap drive at Donington in 1993, Senna had the best car in those conditions. Senna had the most refined traction control in the field, along with various lesser driver aids. Schumacher's Benetton didn't have several of those aids, and didn't even have traction control - that came 3 races later at Monaco.

As for Schumacher having little competition - drivers like Prost, Piquet, Mansell were quoted. Schumacher drove his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th races as Piquet's teammate. He outpaced Piquet in qualifying every single time, outqualifying him every time except the final race where Schumacher's gearbox was playing up in qualifying, costing him half a second on his fastest lap.

So the points I made are:
-you cannot say with any certainty that the 1993 McLaren was inferior to the 1993 Benetton.
-when you say Schumacher did not have Prost, Piquet, the 3+ WDCs to compete against, you should bear in mind that rookie Schumacher destroyed Piquet in 1991.

 

[Patrik]

Wait until i drive my Volvo 245 3min flat!!!

 

[Majarvis]

Just thought I'd offer some defense in Schumacher's name here. I should point out, there is no reason to think that the McLaren Senna drove in 1993 was any slower than the Benetton Schumacher drove. The statement: 'Senna's car had an inferior engine therefore Senna's car was inferior' does not really hold if you think about it.

Senna's McLaren was a little down on power but then his McLaren had the best electronic driver aids - launch control, active control, traction control in the field. So good were these driver aids compared to Williams, Benetton, and other teams, that Senna was able to make the best start of anyone and be passing 2 or 3 people before the first corner, and never lost a place off the startline himself. The traction control also gave him better grip in all slow or medium speed corners.

At his famous first lap drive at Donington in 1993, Senna had the best car in those conditions. Senna had the most refined traction control in the field, along with various lesser driver aids. Schumacher's Benetton didn't have several of those aids, and didn't even have traction control - that came 3 races later at Monaco.

As for Schumacher having little competition - drivers like Prost, Piquet, Mansell were quoted. Schumacher drove his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th races as Piquet's teammate. He outpaced Piquet in qualifying every single time, outqualifying him every time except the final race where Schumacher's gearbox was playing up in qualifying, costing him half a second on his fastest lap.

So the points I made are:
-you cannot say with any certainty that the 1993 McLaren was inferior to the 1993 Benetton.
-when you say Schumacher did not have Prost, Piquet, the 3+ WDCs to compete against, you should bear in mind that rookie Schumacher destroyed Piquet in 1991.

Thank you for pointing that out Nice to see someone with clear, un-obscured and un-biased opinions

 

[daan]

Schumacher drove his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th races as Piquet's teammate. He outpaced Piquet in qualifying every single time, outqualifying him every time except the final race where Schumacher's gearbox was playing up in qualifying, costing him half a second on his fastest lap.

[fans the flames]
Piquet was past it by then.

In 1992, Martin Brundle was Schumacher's Benetton teammate. Schumacher quailfied better then Brundle but, more often than not, Brundle raced just as well if not better than Schumacher.

Brundle's race performances were easily a match for anything Schumacher had to offer

Brundle was a good driver, but he wasn't really out of the top drawer.
[/fans the flames]

 

[Ferrari Enzo]

is there a version in avi or mpg of this video?? i must see this!!!!!

 

[EGFerio]

Thank you for pointing that out Nice to see someone with clear, un-obscured and un-biased opinions

I was stating the skills that Senna has with a under spec engine.

 

[Ferrari Enzo]

please RE-UP the sauber movie, it isnt working...

 

[Duke]

I was stating the skills that Senna has with a under spec engine.

BOYS BOYS BOYS!

Can we please get back somewhere remotely near the topic at hand? If you want to discuss F1 drivers, have you thought about trying -[gasp]- the F1 board?!
💡

 

[Moadib]

Just thought I'd offer some defense in Schumacher's name here. I should point out, there is no reason to think that the McLaren Senna drove in 1993 was any slower than the Benetton Schumacher drove. The statement: 'Senna's car had an inferior engine therefore Senna's car was inferior' does not really hold if you think about it.[/QUOTE=F310B]

At that time when a team set R&D resource, the first priorities were engine power and aerodynamics. Those were the key issues, and Senna's intense lobbying of Ford at that time explains that actually the inferior engine was a major issue.

At his famous first lap drive at Donington in 1993, Senna had the best car in those conditions. Senna had the most refined traction control in the field, along with various lesser driver aids. Schumacher's Benetton didn't have several of those aids, and didn't even have traction control - that came 3 races later at Monaco.[/QUOTE=F310B]

Regarding the traction control, even without it Senna again and again showed his class in the wet, such as Estoril '85, so it's a little disingenuous to imply that is the reason for the difference. At the Donington race Schumacher flung his car off into the gravel in practice, and again during the race, whereas Patrese complete practice and the race, and scored points, so the car was far from "undriveable". I don't think we can say the Williams were inferior, as in the practice and warm up Hill was either fastest or a fraction behind (Prost has never been as committed in the wet).

I think Schumacher himself said it best after the race "All I can say to the team is sorry, and I'll try to make up for it next time". He doesn't make excuses for this error..

-you cannot say with any certainty that the 1993 McLaren was inferior to the 1993 Benetton.[/QUOTE=F310B]

Power being the absolute key in F1, and Schumacher having power for the entire season and traction control for the majority of it, I think it's more than clear.

-when you say Schumacher did not have Prost, Piquet, the 3+ WDCs to compete against, you should bear in mind that rookie Schumacher destroyed Piquet in 1991[/QUOTE=F310B]

It should also be borne in mind that earlier in the season Piquet had been outqualified many times by.....Roberto Moreno. Nothing against Roberto Moreno, but I think it's clear that at that time Piquet was by no means the driver he once was. Certainly nothing like the driver trading pole positions and race wins with Mansell, Prost, Senna and Lauda during the '80s.

 

[Moadib]

Euuhm????
Schumacher has also raced many years against Senna and Prost. And like Hakkinen, and villeneuve and Damon and Senna and Prost didn't took victory's of Schumacher

Sorry, replied to wrong message!

 

[Moadib]

Yet, you seem to neglect the fact that Senna and Prost were running with the top teams in F1 at that time, while Schumacher was with Benetton.
Also, you neglect the fact that Schumacher was handing Senna his ass on a silver platter in '94 up until San Marino...

Three races.

In qual, Senna took pole in three - Schumacher took zero.
In race, Senna spun in one (his mistake, no win), was punted out by Hakkinen in second (nothing he could do), died in third while leading.

You need to look up "ass handed to him" in the dictionary....

 

[F310B]

At his famous first lap drive at Donington in 1993, Senna had the best car in those conditions. Senna had the most refined traction control in the field, along with various lesser driver aids. Schumacher's Benetton didn't have several of those aids, and didn't even have traction control - that came 3 races later at Monaco.[/QUOTE=F310B]

Regarding the traction control, even without it Senna again and again showed his class in the wet, such as Estoril '85, so it's a little disingenuous to imply that is the reason for the difference.

Senna was an amazing wet weather driver. Did I ever say he wasn't the best? He may or may not have been the best in the wet and he may or may not have won the 1993 Donington race if none of the cars had had traction control systems. But one thing is certain; Schumacher, without traction control along with other driver aids, had no chance.

-you cannot say with any certainty that the 1993 McLaren was inferior to the 1993 Benetton.[/QUOTE=F310B]

Power being the absolute key in F1, and Schumacher having power for the entire season and traction control for the majority of it, I think it's more than clear.

It is not clear. 'Power being the absolute key'? How much % performance is contributed by differences in the engine? Let me tell you, it is a lot less than 100.

I think you are saying (paraphrase) 'The McLaren had less power than the Benetton, therefore the McLaren was worse than the Benetton.' You simply cannot say that.

What I am saying is 'The McLaren had less power than the Benetton, but it had traction control for more of the races, and also had superior traction control to the Benetton (that's what everyone in the pitlane said at the time, and is evidenced by Senna and Andretti's conistenly fast starts). Therefore the McLaren may or may not have been a worse car than the Benetton.

It should also be borne in mind that earlier in the season Piquet had been outqualified many times by.....Roberto Moreno. Nothing against Roberto Moreno, but I think it's clear that at that time Piquet was by no means the driver he once was. Certainly nothing like the driver trading pole positions and race wins with Mansell, Prost, Senna and Lauda during the '80s.

When you say 'many times', you mean 3. I wouldn't call '3' 'many'. Please, either be more specific, or don't post such things in your argument. It's also worth pointing out that at one of those races where Moreno outqualified Piquet, Piquet went on to win. So I don't think Piquet was quite as over the hill as you suggest.

I probably shouldn't be posting this, as this thread has gone off topic. It's just frustrating that I posted what must be one of the most unbiased posts in history, and someone still feels the need to take issue with it. My post was void of assumptions and opinions, and the things that you quoted when you replied to my post were all facts. You can't deny that. That doesn't mean you won't... but you really shouldn't!

 

[Famine]

BOYS BOYS BOYS!

Sabrina! I love that song.


Anyway, skewing vaguely back towards the topic, I've just golded my IA-15.

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5 16v Evolution II road car around the 'Ring in 9'02 or less. I did an 8'56, but still have no idea for most of the track. From the straight to the finish (at the Old Start/Finish) I'm fine, and for the first sequence to the first "straight" I'm okay. In fact, even at Carousel turns I'm okay. But Miss-Hit-Miss foxes me every time, and everything between that and Carousel 1 is a mystery.

Oh, and once more... ****ing Pace Car! 5th gear, drafting him on the straight and I am clearly catching him to the point where I have to ease off under the bridge or nail him...

 

[Race Idiot]

Sabrina! I love that song.


Anyway, skewing vaguely back towards the topic, I've just golded my IA-15.

Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5 16v Evolution II road car around the 'Ring in 9'02 or less. I did an 8'56, but still have no idea for most of the track. From the straight to the finish (at the Old Start/Finish) I'm fine, and for the first sequence to the first "straight" I'm okay. In fact, even at Carousel turns I'm okay. But Miss-Hit-Miss foxes me every time, and everything between that and Carousel 1 is a mystery.

Oh, and once more... ****ing Pace Car! 5th gear, drafting him on the straight and I am clearly catching him to the point where I have to ease off under the bridge or nail him...

I completely understand what your talking about, I feel like I know most of the track so well. But then after the mini carousel every damn corner looks the same for a while which is a bit of a put off making me enter the corners too slowly or at the wrong angle.

Yesterday I spent about two hours trying to gold the Hong Kong lap on the iB licence and the amount of times I accidentally outbraked the pacecar or gave him a nudge in the rear was phenominal. Although I must admit I was enjoying learning the circuit and the car which has a very lively rear. Mind you it was the same with the 206RC at Amalfi the pacecar loves to brake in some strange places.

 

[Famine]

Wait until you hit IA-16. Dullest. Licence. Test. EvAr.

64 golds for me now... *cracks knuckles* Onto some more Pace Car fun with the S-licence...