Rubens and why he couldn't beat Michael [Archive]

View Full Version : Rubens and why he couldn't beat Michael

ioan

2nd April 2007, 14:18

<< ...recently asked by F1 Racing mgazine if he ever thought he wasn't as good as Schumacher, Barrichello said: "Never!"

He did, however, concede that there were some aspects of grand prix racing where Schumacher was a cut above everyone else.

"But I'll never be as good as him on an out-lap. He was supreme - the speed he had there was something that you wouldn't believe," he continued.

"But could I, on equal terms, be Champion against him? I'm pretty sure I could.

"But Michael didn't have bad days, and I did have some - I still do, so I have to overcome them." >>

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2028908,00.html

I would however say that MS also had some bad days, that is "bad luck" days.

Shifter

2nd April 2007, 15:57

I heard as well that Michael finnesed the throttle while Rubens used the throttle pedal more as an on/off switch

Big Ben

2nd April 2007, 15:57

I know why he never became a Champion against MS. because of 2 simple reasons:
first and foremost: He didn´t have the skill to win against MS (not regularly) and
secondly:... everybody knows this one,, I´m not going to say it

ArrowsFA1

2nd April 2007, 16:15

harsha

2nd April 2007, 18:23

ioan is still feeling the effects of schumacher's retirement :D

ioan

2nd April 2007, 20:02

If the outcome of this thread is to re-ignite a familiar and very well worn discussion regarding MS's status, and that of his team-mates, at Ferrari then it will be moved to History and Nostalgia (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=111).

The outcome depends on what people will discuss, the thread is about Rubens and what he said on 31 March 2007, hardly history I would say.

Robinho

2nd April 2007, 21:57

simply, Rubens was probably 5-10% of the time MS's equal and able to take it to him, and could beat him especially if that coincided with the 1-2% of the time MS wasn't on top of his game.

but for 90-95% of the time he simply wasn't at that level, whilst he undoubtedly had the speed, the difference between good and great is the ability to be at your very very best 90+% of the time, something few drivers have, and something i begrudgingly have to admit MS did have

wedge

2nd April 2007, 23:29

I would say RB was usually about a couple tenths off MS. There were some aspects of Schumi's racecraft where he was absolutely supreme - his in and out laps, the ability to drive on the absolute limit for half a race stint by reeling off a succession of flying laps.

Certainly, MS had bogey tracks and RB had the upper hand - Melbourne, Austria, Silverstone, to name but few.

Kevincal

3rd April 2007, 00:05

I think certainly Rubens near-fatal crash in 1994 has something to do with his lack of speed...

Dzeidzei

3rd April 2007, 08:54

I think certainly Rubens near-fatal crash in 1994 has something to do with his lack of speed...

How did it slow him down?

And just to remind you: Mika Häkkinen came from a near fatal accident to become 2 time WDC, Lauda did the same. With Mika it seems that having Hugo (his son) slowed him down a bit.

ArrowsFA1

3rd April 2007, 09:27

"But could I, on equal terms, be Champion against him? I'm pretty sure I could."
Note the use of the words "on equal terms", because clearly we know Rubens didn't become champion at Ferrari.

"But Michael didn't have bad days, and I did have some - I still do, so I have to overcome them."
It's not often a driver admits his own weaknesses so credit to Rubens for that, but if he hasn't done so after 233 GP's he's unlikely to eliminate those bad days now.

Donney

3rd April 2007, 10:43

Obviously Rubens is clever enough as to admit that Schumacher was supreme in his driving, but I also find interesting the use of "in equal terms" it leaves an open door to speculation.

I think he was not as good as Schumacher but he deserves credit for admitting he has bad days, as Arrows is not very often that drivers are so sincere.

Dzeidzei

3rd April 2007, 12:16

Obviously Rubens is clever enough as to admit that Schumacher was supreme in his driving, but I also find interesting the use of "in equal terms" it leaves an open door to speculation.

Its not interesting, its a given. Its something every driver would say. And even should say.

Thats why JV thinks he´s the fastest. Thats why Montoya thinks he´s the fastest. Thats why... you name it.

Heck, I think even DC thinks he would be the fastest. If he only had equal terms.

And if there werent those bloody Finns, of course.

Valve Bounce

5th April 2007, 20:09

<< ...recently asked by F1 Racing mgazine if he ever thought he wasn't as good as Schumacher, Barrichello said: "Never!"

He did, however, concede that there were some aspects of grand prix racing where Schumacher was a cut above everyone else.

"But I'll never be as good as him on an out-lap. He was supreme - the speed he had there was something that you wouldn't believe," he continued.

"But could I, on equal terms, be Champion against him? I'm pretty sure I could.

"But Michael didn't have bad days, and I did have some - I still do, so I have to overcome them." >>

http://www.planet-f1.com/story/0,18954,3213_2028908,00.html

.

I think this is a very honest statement from Rubens. :up: