If Montoya were to comeback....

[Hampus Andersson]

Yea i think Cosworth was first to 21.000 and BMW to 20.000 and i believe BMW was first to reach 900 horses.

the scream of the BMW plant is INSANE.

And this is why i loved Montoya, completely fearless and did not put Schumacher on a pedistal.

0:32 in this video you can see the power of the engine has he just reels in Schumacher,

 

[Chris Cronshaw]

Great pass that at the Bus Stop. Would love to see that on an outboard view!

Villeneuve was also not feared of Schumacher but didn't have the machinery to challenge him post 97.
This is hats of move like the Bus Stop!

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Insane

Let´s not forget Hakkinen as well Amazing overtake!

 

[Chris Cronshaw]

Insane

Let´s not forget Hakkinen as well Amazing overtake!

Yeah. It's funny that 3 of the greatest overtakes ever (certainly of the era) are all on a driver that many consider "The Best."

 

[Vinicius Ferreira]

I cant believe you guys are discussing "IF", there is no IF in life or in F1, we have facts, which are:

Michael Schumacher is 7 times World Champion, and still drives for Mercedes in F1
Montoya is a medium driver in Nascar, he cant get good results, its hard to see he in top 10.
Villeneuve is a tourist, who have been driven for V8 supercars, nascar, stock car brasil, etc

Now i going to dream with "IF's" like you:

If kubica didnt drive in Rally, he could be fighting for F1 title this year.
If Bellof just drive F1, he could be ALIVE and F1 champion.
If Massa scored just One more point in 2008, he would be a hero here in Brazil, now he is a joke here, the "barrichello 2.0"
If there is no Michael Schumacher, Hill would be 3 times World Champion, Hakkinen too, even Coulthard would be 2001 champion, and Barrichello double world champion.

So there is no "IF", lets discuss facts.

And yes you are right, Michael had been overtaked by montoya, raikkonen and hakkinen in SPA, and yes all of them were excellent manouvers.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I´m not sure what you are getting at but the fact that Schumacher won the titles is OBVIOUS and a fact.
You might as well tell us that the earth is round.

But when things happen (that you obviously had no idea about) then it opens up a discussion of a strong possibility that Ferrari/Schumacher would not have won that many titles.

It would be easier if you actually watched those seasons to have a better understanding rather then reading on Wikipedia how many titles Schumacher had or how many races Ferrari won in that period.

I bet you are one of those who say Senna is the best because everyone else say so.
Or Schumacher is best because he´s got 7 titles.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

"His only chance would be 2003" Where is the FACT in that?

Even if williams made a better car, his chance would be only 2003, when Michael won by a couple of points.

This above is as much of a guess as we were speculating. Yet none of us blasted the door in claiming we needed facts.
We know Schumacher won those titles but we are speculating on what would have happened if Williams had first of all the same budget as Ferrari, an equal car, not getting wider front tires banned etc.

My opinion is he would have won multiple titles had they just built slightly better cars.
The engine really masked a lot of problems for them.

 

[Chris Cronshaw]

Agree with Hampus!
And yes while Schumacher does have fact he is a 7 time champion, we are also discussing the fact that are they all really "legit".
We have a situation where as far as I can recollect he is the only driver to have doubt over the eligibility of any of his championships!

I don't see where the problem lies in discussing if's but's and maybe's.
If that's the case we may as well have 2 pages of posts which say "yes" or "no."
No room for discussion without if's, but's or maybe's.
Doesn't sound like a forum to me!

If everyone relied on the hardcore fact and statistics to make decisions we would live in a very boring world.
No one would buy Alfa's gorgeous looking and passionate cars, but stats and fact say they break down.
Brawn would never have won the 2009 WDC/WCC Stats and facts say Ferrari, Williams and McLaren are the most successful constructor so why bother turning up!

And the list is endless!

 

[Hampus Andersson]

This whole thread would not even exist without If´s but´s and maybe´s

 

[Ivan Mills]

MS is the all time top dog of F1, and until his stats are detroned he will hold that title as well.
If its in the book its legit,period!

 

[Hampus Andersson]

He's the most succesful F1 driver off all time.
If he's the best, fastest, most impressive etc that's another issue.

 

[Markus Neumann]

In my opinion, it's pretty hard to argue with the fact that Schumacher was the best driver between 1994 and 2006. Even from 1996 to 1999, it was pretty obvious that Hill, Villeneuve and Hakkinen only had the title out on loan due to much better machinery.
If he's the best of all time is completely impossible to tell because he never raced against Fangio and Clark and only a short time against Senna and Prost (those are, in my opinion, the other four people who qualify for that title). Additionally, you'd also have to ask: "at which point in their careers?" I'd say that Schumacher was better than Alonso in '05 and '06, but I think that Alonso has surpassed him now. At the same time, one could say that Schumacher was already better than Senna in 1994, but he didn't race him during his prime, so it's tough to compare...

This thread should be about Montoya though, so perhaps we should focus our attention back on him...

I also find the "if only Williams hadn't screwed up their car, Montoya would have been WDC" argument a bit pointless though because you could just as easily say "if only Ferrari had built as good an engine as BWM, Schumacher would have lapped the other podium finishers in every race" etc

And on the topic of the hypothetical case of Montoya returning: Sure, bring it on. Montoya and Maldonado in the same car. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Chris Cronshaw]

MS is the all time top dog of F1, and until his stats are detroned he will hold that title as well.
If its in the book its legit,period!

Legit is a strong word... After all was his 94 title "legit" illegal TC and ramming Hill off the road.

And on the other points to surmise the championship was out on loan because of better machinery between 96-99 is a tad of an overstatement. You could make the same assumptions of MS 2000-2004. Except he had something the other drivers never had a team mate working to one goal, secure the #1 driver the WDC.

Back to Montoya. I really don't think he was that reckless. he had a dog of a first season acclimatising to F1. Then he battered RS until his departure to McLaren where he found it hard to get the support of the team due to Kimmi being loved by Ron Dennis. 2001 and 05/06 were his worst seasons but the bit's in between he was phenomenal marred by albeit fantastic engine but poorly designed car. Walrus nose anyone?

 

[Hampus Andersson]

I also find the "if only Williams hadn't screwed up their car, Montoya would have been WDC" argument a bit pointless though because you could just as easily say "if only Ferrari had built as good an engine as BWM, Schumacher would have lapped the other podium finishers in every race" etc

Yea or if Minardi built a super fast car they could have won every title since the start.

That was never the point though.
The point was BMW gave them an opportunity, an advantage compared to the rest of the field for at least 3-4 years.
It´s this opportunity they blew.

 

[Ivan Mills]

who had the best car and who didnt is absolutely irrelevant....it is up to the driver to execute his career in a way where he is always driving the fastest car...and of course MS did that brilliantly for the most part of his F1 career(something that many conveniently choose to overlook when they bash and downsize his achievements). . The best way to win champioships is to wrap it up halfway through the season,like Michael use to..having to battle some teamamte defeats that formula....,so to suggest he won cuz his teamamte helped him is silly...because that wasnt the teams phylosophy to begin with.

And another reason why MS has 7WDC is because he made the very wise descision to not race for McLaren...

 

[Vinicius Ferreira]

Legit is a strong word... After all was his 94 title "legit" illegal TC and ramming Hill off the road.

And on the other points to surmise the championship was out on loan because of better machinery between 96-99 is a tad of an overstatement. You could make the same assumptions of MS 2000-2004. Except he had something the other drivers never had a team mate working to one goal, secure the #1 driver the WDC.

Back to Montoya. I really don't think he was that reckless. he had a dog of a first season acclimatising to F1. Then he battered RS until his departure to McLaren where he found it hard to get the support of the team due to Kimmi being loved by Ron Dennis. 2001 and 05/06 were his worst seasons but the bit's in between he was phenomenal marred by albeit fantastic engine but poorly designed car. Walrus nose anyone?

1994 he was banned in 2 races, and suspended for 2.

Hill won this 4 races, thats why he came to adelaide one point behind.

 

[Chris Cronshaw]

Was he banned for using an illegal TC and ramming Hill off the road?
No!

 

[Ivan Mills]

as for JPM..the dude is extremely talented when it comes to driving...he has won in every type of racing he has competed in,but in general imo he lacked the savvy needed to be a F1 champ,his fittness level was always an issue,his attitude/determination wasnt proffesional enough...i think F1 was a bit overwhelming for him ,so even if he came back he would still face the same problems...he is just a tad lazy imo,but man can he drive

If Pastor Maldonado can sort out his crashing ,it'll be just a matter of time before he racks up a WDC or 2...the guy is a cold blooded killer,relentlessly ruthless

 

[Hampus Andersson]

who had the best car and who didnt is absolutely irrelevant....it is up to the driver to execute his career in a way where he is always driving the fastest car...

It´s not actually.
The car is a more important tool then the driver is.
It´s been like that for many many years now.
It has never been irrelevant on what car/team you are in, in Formula 1.
Not even in the early days, if anything it was even more important back then because people had no idea about anything back then compared to today.

As for the latter part. That´s pure guess work from a driver´s point of view.
If anything it´s your management that needs to have a feel for who´s gonna be quick the next year.

It doesn´t always work either..
Schumacher should have obviously moved to Renault after 04.
Alonso should have moved to Ferrari in 07. Then to Mclaren in 08.
Senna should have moved to Williams much earlier.

The reason these driver´s haven´t won every single title and been with every single championship winning team every single year is because it is guesswork.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

The best way to win champioships is to wrap it up halfway through the season,like Michael use to..having to battle some teamamte defeats that formula....,

To do that you need a car that ALLOWS you to do that.
And you probably need a teammate that is nowhere near you at that.

Nobody denies Schumacher is good, awesome and brilliant as a Formula 1 driver but people speak of him as if he was a god which is ridiculous.
His titles was not simply only because of him, they were because of Benetton and Ferrari as well.